Revelation: Yea or Nah and Why?

[Karen107]

Matthew 28:20 could be used to explain that while Patrick Madrid is correct that no Pope receives revelation/inspiration to lead the entire church, that this does not mean that Catholicism is not God’s church, because God is always with them.

That being said, Patrick Madrid claimed that the only Pope who was INSPIRED and who received REVELATION to be GIVEN TO THE WHOLE CHURCH was Peter. You said that … “doesn’t mean they have no inspiration from God… no no no.”
I am not claiming that post-Peter Popes do not receive personal inspiration. I am claiming that they do not receive inspiration/revelation to be given to the whole church like Peter did.

Are you claiming that current Popes receive inspiration/revelation to be given to the whole church?

In the past I offered this:
The Council of Jerusalem decided via inspiration/revelation that the “burden of circumcision” would not be placed upon the non-Jewish Christians.
The Catholic Church may decide something concerning annulments/remarriage/Eucharist in the next few years. This decision will not be via inspiration/revelation to be given to the whole church. It cannot be. If it concerns faith and morals, it might be sealed infallibly, but it will be arrived at via natural not supernatural means.
This is a different charisma.

Have I misunderstood?

Charity, TOm

Yes, your questions are leading in the wrong direction. The Holy Spirit guides the Church to the truth, it always has, so what the Church believes on these things can’t contradict what it previous believes on these things but rather on revelation, further explain or edifies our beliefs. , if the Pope acted alone on his inspirations which contradicted what we believe as Catholics and they weren’t ‘driven’ by the rest of the Church teachings you would be right. But the Pope learns the Church teaching and works within the apostolic faith received by the Church or it cannot be true ‘inspirations’, but rather his private revelation which was no longer accepted as ‘public’, because it would be his alone… In other words, if it doesn’t line up with Church beliefs it can’t be so or infalliable. If it does line up with Church beliefs and our apostolic faith and it instructs on faith and morals and said while the Pope is sitting in the Chair of Peter (on record) it is infalliable… Why? Because The Pope has been given the ability to bind and loose by Jesus…Why? Because God left a teaching Church who teaches us the way to live.

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

All that said, the Pope is still a person who is a member of the body of Christ so the statements he makes represents the Church for the good of the Church… The greatest of these shall serve the Least of these so it all works out…

Luke 22:26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.

It is a supernatural means because it came the path of the Holy Spirit from the beginning… All the teachings came from the Holy Spirit since Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit on the Church at the beginning and it was passed through the Church so it would be led to the truth…

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

If you doubt that you doubt Jesus words have power and might…

 

[Peter_J]

Which one means yes?

(Somebody had to say it.)

 

[Peter_J]

I think the OP belongs in the apologetics forum.

But the one who posted it subscribes to an NCR.

 

[Karen107]

I’ll post this quote again.

Quote:
The only pope who was inspired and who received revelation from God to be given to the whole Church was Simon Peter. After he went home to his heavenly reward, all the subsequent popes have had to do their job of teaching and preserving the deposit of faith the old fashion way: They learned it.

If you take those words ‘from God’ and substitute ‘from Jesus’… it makes more sense because the only Pope who was inspired and received revelation directly from Jesus was Peter who was alive and walked with Jesus while Jesus walked on earth…Jesus worked really hard with Peter so he would understand what these things meant, the Eucharist, the Trinity, the healings, baptism, hearing confessions, etc… Subsequent Popes built on that apostolic faith given to Peter, they dont contradict it so they had to learn about the faith of the Apostles like we do from our Catechism or Church teaching. It doesn’t mean we are not inspired by God, but we can’t contradict our Churches basic beliefs which were found to be true or else we take away from that basic foundation of the apostolic faith. Peter was called the Rock, because he had the ‘deposit of faith’ and understanding for which Jesus wanted His Church built upon…

 

[Stephen168]

TOm chooses to hold as few mutually contradictory truths in his head at any given time as he can. If he is told something on this board that does not align with what he has learned from Patrick Madrid, he will not believe both are true.
Just because a Catholic says it is true about Catholicism does not mean I should jettison everything I have tried to learn from other Catholics about Catholicism.
And yes, “poisoning the well” works here. TOm is “feigning a desire.” But I do not think you are correct.

What do Catholics mean by revelation?

Can you align what Patrick Madrid said and what is being said by those on this board? I cannot.

You reject the Catholic understand of revelation; as seen on this thread a few times already. You reject the Catholic understanding of God; as can be seen on previous threads. All the while feigning a desire for understand. A Christian could easily understand Patrick Madrid, who I believe were the target audience of his book.

In fact so far nobody has even acknowledge that a rational person might see a contradiction in what is being said here and what I quoted from Patrick Madrid. This is a red flag for me.

The red flag is many of us know you are not honestly looking for Catholic Answers, so it is a waste of time.

 

[SteveVH]

Now that I am off my phone I thought I would add a small bit in that might be germane to what I am reading from Living Waters.
10 years ago as I was researching Papal Infallibility I was taught an important and interesting concept that aligns well with what you have said here.
I was asked by a Catholic friend, “If the Pope was infallible in Math, what grade would he get on a Math test?”
I said 100%.
He said, “No, the Pope could get any grade from 0% to 100% on the test, but ANY answer he provided (did not leave blank) would be correct. He may know zero answers, but if he choose to answer any question and did, it would be correct.”
If I can get some more time tonight I will try to provide an answer to LivingWaters and other posts.
Charity, TOm

Your friend was 100% wrong. If the pope took a math test while exercising infallibility how many questions should he answer correctly? The answer is none. He should not answer any of the questions because of the possibility of answering even one wrong.

The gift of infallibility is limited to faith and morals.

 

[lax16]

Hi Tom - I have a couple of extra tickets to see Patrick Madrid on Saturday, April 18 th here in Sandy, Utah.

Let me know if you are interested.

 

[TOmNossor]

Hi Tom - I have a couple of extra tickets to see Patrick Madrid on Saturday, April 18 th here in Sandy, Utah.

Let me know if you are interested.

Thank you, but …
If I where in Utah I would be there!!!
I have seen him once and I enjoyed it.
Please ask him about my understanding of Pope Fiction. I will give you my email if you or he want to educate me on this.
He will probably not remember me, but I went to see him in New Mexico many years ago.
I was the only Mormon there of course and he gave me 1 or 2 of his books.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

All,
I will go over what I think I see here. I will start with what I think we agree upon.

Catholics believe and TOm recognizes Catholics believe:
1.Papal Infallibility and Conciliar Infallibility is protection from error in certain specific instances. Popes and Ecumenical Councils will be prevented from teaching error. This prevention comes through the Holy Spirit which is involved with leading the Catholic Church from the days of Jesus until today.
2.The Catholic Church has not been abandoned by God. Miracles happen, leaders and laity are inspired by God. Prayers are offered and answered.
3.One aspect of the term “public revelation” in Catholic thought is that “public revelation” is all that is necessary for salvation. There is no new “public revelation” needed to provide for the salvific needs of the individual. Salvation comes through the Catholic Church to the saved, and no additional “public revelation” is needed for this. Thus at (or shortly after) the close of the First Century “public revelation” ended.

Points where I cannot align what I have been taught in other places and what I am reading here.

Minor Point:
3a. I believe the term “public revelation” as contrasted with “private revelation” has been used by Catholic thinkers regularly to mean “corporate revelation” (revelation for the whole church) as opposed to “private revelation.” It seems that most posters here suggest that I am unwarranted in believing this and that “public revelation” connotes ONLY that revelation that is necessary for salvation. Posters here suggest there is no additional connotation of “corporate revelation.”

Major Point:
4. After reproducing my quote of Patrick Madrid, Reuben J said:

This is not true. Either you misquoted Madrid or took his statement out of context or that he was plain wrong (which I doubt very much he was, in such a straight forward matter).

Here is some more context. Patrick Madrid Pope Fiction:
On Page 134:
Patrick Madrid claims that Catholics are less excused for believing the “Pope Fiction” you are believing. He quotes disapprovingly:
Page 134:

Papal infallibility is an absurd claim. Given all the lousy decision different popes have made, there’s no way they can be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Christ said the Holy Spirit would guide the Church in “all truth,” but clearly, many popes have lived lives that were far from truth and taught things that were false.

He then goes on to say:
Page 134 – continued from above:

It’s amazing just how many Catholics have fallen for this one. Non-Catholic can, perhaps, be excused when they get so fundamental a Catholic doctrine mixed up. But for Catholic, there’s not really a good excuse. And if you read this fiction closely, you’ll see two, two, two myths in one! The first is the myth that infallibility equals sinlessness (what is sometimes called “impeccability”). The second is that the pope, by virtue of his charism of infallibility, receives inspiration from God. Both notions are untrue.

Page 139-140

Honestly, though, it would be great if the pope did receive inspiration, direct revelation, from God. It would be marvelous if each pope who has ever sat on the Chair of Peter had been sinless and a model of sanctity for the world. If they had, so many things would have been so much easier! But that kind of tidiness never seems to be part of God’s plan. He works best when his grace works through our human weakness and frailty. Sinlessness as a quality of the popes has never happened. Rather, sinfulness, to some degree, high or low, has always been and will always be the norm for popes (as with the rest of us).
The only pope who was inspired and who received revelation from God to be given to the whole Church was Simon Peter. After he went home to his heavenly reward, all the subsequent popes have had to do their job of teaching and preserving the deposit of faith the old fashion way: They learned it.

I am unsure how I could have possibly taken Madrid out of context. I am fairly sure that Madrid’s book has included a very similar quote in earlier additions and thus Madrid edited it without changing the meaning. I believe Madrid’s quote aligns with my section from the CCC (and I do not believe my section from the CCC contradicts LivingWater’s section from the CCC). I also believe Madrid’s quote aligns with my quote from Dave Armstrong.
From here I think we have a few choices.
1.Some Catholics here can begin to acknowledge that I understand the LACK of inspiration/revelation present in the Papacy. They could then go on to my point #2 in the OP. Maybe some of these Catholics would be the same ones who have argued I was wrong and they might even acknowledge that they were wrong.
2.I can continue to study and may realize that Patrick Madrid is wrong and I need to align with the Catholics on this thread. If this happens, I will come back and profess “mea culpa” in true Catholic spirit! I promise!
3. We can disagree about what is taught here and my continued research will not change my understanding. I will be forced to choose between Patrick Madrid, the CCC, Dave Armstrong (and my best understanding of those words) and the words of folks on this thread. Also, the next time I bring it up, Stephen will accuse me of all sorts of nefarious things and an intentional misunderstanding. Or maybe I will be called the devil again.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Your friend was 100% wrong. If the pope took a math test while exercising infallibility how many questions should he answer correctly? The answer is none. He should not answer any of the questions because of the possibility of answering even one wrong.

The gift of infallibility is limited to faith and morals.

You misunderstood the initial conditional statement, “if the Pope was infallible in math.” Or so it seems to me.
I have no way to parse your statement to understand it (other than that)
Maybe you believe the pope is infallible in some thing unequal to “faith and morals,” but when he speaks on “faith and morals” this is when that infallibility is realized. So if that thing unequal to “faith and morals” became “math” the pope would still only be infallible when he spoke concerning “faith and morals.”
I do not understand your objection.
Charity, TOm

 

[lax16]

Thank you, but …
If I where in Utah I would be there!!!
I have seen him once and I enjoyed it.
Please ask him about my understanding of Pope Fiction. I will give you my email if you or he want to educate me on this.
He will probably not remember me, but I went to see him in New Mexico many years ago.
I was the only Mormon there of course and he gave me 1 or 2 of his books.
Charity, TOm

Do you have the book Pope Fiction? Talk about coincidence, or miracles, I just purchased two of these books to give to Mormons who have been reading a book about Pope Joan.

Apparently, they can’t take them (not sure why) and I now have two brand new books laying around.

Would you like one?

 

[Stephen168]

Let us use the term “corporate revelation” as defined by TOm as revelation delivered to leaders of God’s church for the purpose of teaching the faith and resolving conflicts.

3.One aspect of the term “public revelation” in Catholic thought is that “public revelation” is all that is necessary for salvation. There is no new “public revelation” needed to provide for the salvific needs of the individual. Salvation comes through the Catholic Church to the saved, and no additional “public revelation” is needed for this. Thus at (or shortly after) the close of the First Century “public revelation” ended.
Points where I cannot align what I have been taught in other places and what I am reading here.
Minor Point:
3a. I believe the term “public revelation” as contrasted with “private revelation” has been used by Catholic thinkers regularly to mean “corporate revelation” (revelation for the whole church) as opposed to “private revelation.” It seems that most posters here suggest that I am unwarranted in believing this and that “public revelation” connotes ONLY that revelation that is necessary for salvation. Posters here suggest there is no additional connotation of “corporate revelation.”

You insist on using “corporate revelation” as a synonym for “public revelation.” You know they are not. So as someone claiming a desire for understanding, why do you do it? Why are you forcing a Mormon definition when you claim to be trying to understand Catholicism?
What do Catholics mean by revelation?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Tom, to be clear, I didn’t call you a devil. I just don’t see that your motivations are divinely inspired.



I think you need to understand what inspiration and revelation mean to a Catholic. In Madrid’s quotes you provided, he is referencing inspiration and revelation in direct correlation to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

This does not mean Madrid is excluding the work of the Holy Spirit in the guidance of the Church and the lives of individuals. You seem to view the two as mutually exclusive, but Catholics do not.

The Pope, in communion with the Majesterium, are inspired by the Holy Spirit. This type of inspiration is not of the scriptural type, but is tied to the scriptural type, in that both types of inspiration are from God, and both are for the same purpose, the salvation of all.

 

[TOmNossor]

You insist on using “corporate revelation” as a synonym for “public revelation.” You know they are not. So as someone claiming a desire for understanding, why do you do it? Why are you forcing a Mormon definition when you claim to be trying to understand Catholicism?
What do Catholics mean by revelation?

I am claiming that I am reading Patrick Madrid in context and understanding him quite well. Folks claiming that I am not and that Catholic teachings is not what Patrick claims have misunderstood Catholicism EXACTLY how Patrick laments they will.
A related truth is that what I might call the “inside baseball” definition of “public revelation” is not ALL that is meant by Catholic theologians when they used the term “public revelation.” And the insistence that this “inside baseball” definition comes from the same folks who believe Patrick Madrid profoundly misunderstands the Catholic faith. So, I am inclined to think the obvious contrast between “public revelation” and “private revelation” evident in Catholic theological works does not SOLELY mean that “public revelation” is the revelation that 1. Is necessary for salvations and 2. Ended in the First Century. But rather the term “public revelation” when used by Catholic theologians has the additional OBVIOUS connotation of “corporate revelation.”

My answer to your question is the same as you quoted.
I think Catholic theologians outside of this board mean this:
Revelation is the content of inspired communication from God. Revelation/Inspiration for the leading of God’s church ceased at the death of the last apostle. Private revelation/inspiration for the building up of individuals faith, guidance of individuals lives, and expression of God’s love continues, but this is not the same as the corporate revelation/inspiration received by Peter and evidenced in the Council of Jerusalem. The Charism of Infallibility is not a product of positive inspiration/revelation, but is the work of God leading the Catholic Church and protecting it from error.

I think those on this board are saying that:
Revelation is the content of inspired communication from God. Revelation/Inspiration that is NECESSARY for salvation ended about 100AD. Revelation/Inspiration to lead the Catholic Church and discover truths as part of this leadership continues today, but is not called “public revelation.” It is every bit as much “corporate revelation” as that received by Peter.

I presently align my beliefs with the beliefs I have learned outside of this thread.

Now, I have answered your question. Here is mine.

Have I misrepresented Patrick Madrid? Do I misunderstand him? Is he ignorant of his Catholic faith?
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I am claiming that I am reading Patrick Madrid in context and understanding him quite well. Folks claiming that I am not and that Catholic teachings is not what Patrick claims have misunderstood Catholicism EXACTLY how Patrick laments they will.
A related truth is that what I might call the “inside baseball” definition of “public revelation” is not ALL that is meant by Catholic theologians when they used the term “public revelation.” And the insistence that this “inside baseball” definition comes from the same folks who believe Patrick Madrid profoundly misunderstands the Catholic faith. So, I am inclined to think the obvious contrast between “public revelation” and “private revelation” evident in Catholic theological works does not SOLELY mean that “public revelation” is the revelation that 1. Is necessary for salvations and 2. Ended in the First Century. But rather the term “public revelation” when used by Catholic theologians has the additional OBVIOUS connotation of “corporate revelation.”

Describe the “inside baseball” definition and its source?

 

[Reuben_J]

1.Papal Infallibility and Conciliar Infallibility is protection from error in certain specific instances.

Specific: in faith and moral only.

Popes and Ecumenical Councils will be prevented from teaching error. This prevention comes through the Holy Spirit which is involved with leading the Catholic Church from the days of Jesus until today.

While errors are prevented, they are not necessarily infallible, depending on the topic being promulgated.

2.The Catholic Church has not been abandoned by God. Miracles happen, leaders and laity are inspired by God. Prayers are offered and answered.

Why would God abandon her? The issue does not arise. And of course, yes.

3.One aspect of the term “public revelation” in Catholic thought is that “public revelation” is all that is necessary for salvation. There is no new “public revelation” needed to provide for the salvific needs of the individual. Salvation comes through the Catholic Church to the saved, and no additional “public revelation” is needed for this. Thus at (or shortly after) the close of the First Century “public revelation” ended.

You introduced that term which is foreign to Catholics. I do not agree with your statement. There is also no mentioned of first century whatever, which is purely your assumption.

Revelations are contained in the Deposit of Faith which came from Jesus. Apostles’ teaching and Tradition were thus handed down to them by the Lord. However, the understanding of the Revelations is ongoing as the Church expanded and grew in the expanding world. The Holy Spirit therefore guides the Popes with correct applications of the Deposit of Faith in dealing with issues that the Church faces. My words, and therefore may be wanting.

3a. I believe the term “public revelation” as contrasted with “private revelation” has been used by Catholic thinkers regularly to mean “corporate revelation” (revelation for the whole church) as opposed to “private revelation.” It seems that most posters here suggest that I am unwarranted in believing this and that “public revelation” connotes ONLY that revelation that is necessary for salvation. Posters here suggest there is no additional connotation of “corporate revelation.”

Yes, there is no new revelation.

As for private revelation, yes, and some are vouched for by the Pope as likely to be authentic. These revelations come from God and usually addressing current issues that the faithful may be facing. Good examples are some of the Marian apparitions.

From time to time the Pope himself may be so inspired to introduce new action for the Church, like John XXIII when he asked to pray for a new Pentecost.

I am unsure how I could have possibly taken Madrid out of context. I am fairly sure that Madrid’s book has included a very similar quote in earlier additions and thus Madrid edited it without changing the meaning. I believe Madrid’s quote aligns with my section from the CCC (and I do not believe my section from the CCC contradicts LivingWater’s section from the CCC). I also believe Madrid’s quote aligns with my quote from Dave Armstrong.

If it is Patrick Madrid’s work that is in contention, it is fine but what’s the use? We are just discussing one Catholic’s thought and that’s it.

To simplify matters, let’s summarize the Catholic’s position, Patrick Madrid’s writing notwithstanding:

(1) Pope’s infallibility is not absurd claim; it’s the doctrine and belief of the Church. This infallibility only pertains to faith and moral, and only when he speaks ex-cathedra.

(2) God’s promise was that He would be with His Church and that the Gate of Hell will not prevail. Thus the Church being assured of the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, principally the Popes.

(3) Popes are not impeccable. They sins and may lack in good character like everybody else and may give wrong teaching.

Let’s use the word revelation as revelation from Jesus to the apostles, and inspired as being inspired by the Holy Spirit. For the sake of discussion, it would be easier if we separate them, rather than the usage of revelation/inspiration.

Thus there is NO new revelation other than from Jesus. The teaching of the apostles, them being disciples and therefore eyewitnesses, are basically ‘Jesus’ revelation’.

God bless

Reuben.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Tom (TOm). I’m reluctant to get embroiled in this thread (those who share my views about internet discussion forums will know what I’m talking about) but I guess I might as well say a very few words …

Now that I am off my phone I thought I would add a small bit in that might be germane to what I am reading from Living Waters.
10 years ago as I was researching Papal Infallibility I was taught an important and interesting concept that aligns well with what you have said here.
I was asked by a Catholic friend, “If the Pope was infallible in Math, what grade would he get on a Math test?”
I said 100%.
He said, “No, the Pope could get any grade from 0% to 100% on the test, but ANY answer he provided (did not leave blank) would be correct. He may know zero answers, but if he choose to answer any question and did, it would be correct.”
If I can get some more time tonight I will try to provide an answer to LivingWaters and other posts.
Charity, TOm

All,
I will go over what I think I see here. I will start with what I think we agree upon.

Catholics believe and TOm recognizes Catholics believe:
1.Papal Infallibility and Conciliar Infallibility is protection from error in certain specific instances. Popes and Ecumenical Councils will be prevented from teaching error. This prevention comes through the Holy Spirit which is involved with leading the Catholic Church from the days of Jesus until today.

The key here is “in certain specific instances”. To put it in perspective, the last time that a Pope made an ex cathedra statement was 65 years ago!

 

[TOmNossor]

I think you need to understand what inspiration and revelation mean to a Catholic. In Madrid’s quotes you provided, he is referencing inspiration and revelation in direct correlation to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

This does not mean Madrid is excluding the work of the Holy Spirit in the guidance of the Church and the lives of individuals. You seem to view the two as mutually exclusive, but Catholics do not.

The Pope, in communion with the Majesterium, are inspired by the Holy Spirit. This type of inspiration is not of the scriptural type, but is tied to the scriptural type, in that both types of inspiration are from God, and both are for the same purpose, the salvation of all.

I believe you are trying to tell me what “inspiration and revelation” mean to you the Catholic.
Madrid is very clear that the word “inspiration” and the word “revelation” should not be used in the way you try to use it. I would think you are saying that anything guided by the Holy Spirit in any way is revelation/inspiration. This is not in alignment with the majority of Catholic teachings on this, but such is fine as long as it is clearly defined.
I have repeatedly acknowledged that Catholics believe the Holy Spirit is involved in the protecting of the deposit of faith. I am less interested in the definitions of words than you might think.
What I am saying is that Peter received revelation/inspiration (in the TOm/Patrick/Catholic theologians sense). The Council of Jerusalem was decided via revelation/inspiration (in the TOm/Patrick/Catholic theologians sense). The Pope and the 21 Ecumenical Councils don’t/haven’t/can’t receive revelation/inspiration (in the TOm/Patrick/Catholic theologian sense). Whatever protection the Holy Spirit provides for the Catholic Church, as understood by Catholic theologians, is not the same as the revelation/inspiration (in the TOm/Patrick/Catholic theologians sense) Peter and the Council of Jerusalem enjoyed. This is not just about being able to write scripture, but that is absolutely part of it (and that is absolute gone from the Catholic Church per Catholic teaching too).
If this ever is established and agreed upon, my follow on premise is that there is no inspired/revealed (in the TOm/Patrick/Catholic theologians sense) utterance evident in the Bible or sacred Tradition that delineates that God will no more lead His church via inspiration/revelation (in the TOm/Patrick/Catholic theologian sense). This becomes part of Catholic teaching as a result of the absence of inspiration/revelation (in the TOm/Patrick/Catholic theologian sense), not as a result of any positive assertion that this CHANGE in the way God leads his church will obtain in the real world.
Charity, TOm

 

[eddie_too]

there is no further divine revelations because Jesus Himself is the fullness of all God can reveal to mankind.

the Life, Death and Resurrection, along with the Ascension left nothing more to be revealed.

on the other hand, the impact of the fullness of revelation that is Jesus has a unique bearing on each of the minds and hearts of those who believe and repent. that is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

those who knew Jesus personally received inspiration at a level unattainable by the later generations of Christians. that does not mean that later generations are not also receiving inspiration from the Holy Spirit in their hearts and minds as they practice living the faith fully revealed in the Lord.

but truly the answer is that after the Incarnation, there simply is nothing more that could even be revealed.

 

[eddie_too]

I should add that the inspiration received by the man who sits in the chair of peter may be considered at a different level than the inspiration each of us receives through the Holy Spirit, in the sense that the office itself bears graces that are unique to it and that no one else is given.

similarly, an ecumenical council in union with the pope receives special graces that only abide in such a council itself.

I believe the doctrine of infallibility is far more dissimilar than similar to either divine revelation or divine inspiration.