Scriptural basis for Papal infallibility?

[lukewarm]

Do you an authentic source that doesn’t summarize it?

stilepisano.it/antichidocumenti/antichi_documenti9.htm

Scroll down to pg 19, do a search for Statuta apostolica contra hereticos within the document.

 

[NotWorthy]

Sorry, Simon, I’m a little late to the game.

How about John 16:13. As you probably know, the Church teaches that when Jesus is talking to just the Apostles, He’s teaching the Church.

But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.

Also, I see it in Matthew 28. Again, Christ s talking to the Church, through the Apostles.

“All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

Jesus has all authority.
Jesus passes it on to the Apostles.
Jesus tells them to teach all that He has commanded.
Jesus will be with them always. He’s not going to let them teach in error.

Now, I know, your first question is “This teaches the Church’s infalliblity at best, but not papal infallibility”. I assumed you were going to be charitable and leave out the “are you nuts, John?”

But we see that Jesus gave Peter authority, as well as the Church Magisterium authority in Matthew. One can’t teach in error if one is able to teach with Jesus’ authority, so I apply to one what I apply to the other.

 

[NotWorthy]

The council of Chalcedon implicity talks of Papal infallibility:

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! this is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

Most of the bishops were against the Pope’s statement prior to it’s reading.

There wasn’t much earlier statements, but this is partly due to the fact that the Pope’s couldn’t exert their authority while the spector of Roman Persecution was over their head. Am I correct when I say the first 30 or so Popes were martyred at the hands of Rome? It’s a wonder there were people willing to step up and carry on the office.

 

[NotWorthy]

BTW, what did Peter teach in error that caused Paul to upgrade him? I’m aware of Peter not eating with the Gentiles even though he taught that Gentiles were allowed in the Covenant. Paul upgraded Peter for his actions, but not for his teachings.

Sadly, numerous popes have duplicated this “teach one way and act another way” technique. But they never let this cause them to teach in error.

 

[NotWorthy]

One more thing, can someone tell me (summarize please, no lengthy articles) why Galileo was condemned?

 

[johnnydigit]

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

• The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
• Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
• Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
• Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Luke 22:32
but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.
If Jesus’ prayer are always heard, then AFTER St. Peter’s betrayal, his faith [St. Peter] WILL NOT FAIL.

I’ve seen Luke 22:32 be used before but I tend to lean on Augustine for a better understanding…
Augustine applies Luke 22:32 and the phrase “man of God” to all believers, all the predestined:

“Therefore when Christ says, ‘I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not,’ we may understand that it was said to him who is built upon the rock. And thus the man of God, not only because he has obtained mercy to be faithful, but also because faith itself does not fail, if he glories, must glory in the Lord. I speak thus of those who are predestinated to the kingdom of God, whose number is so certain that one can neither be added to them nor taken from them; not of those who, when He had announced and spoken, were multiplied beyond number.” (On Rebuke and Grace, 38-39)

Elsewhere, he applies the phrase “man of God” to all believers again:
“If then these two new things, not yet done, were set before us, and it were asked of us, ‘Which is the most wonderful, that He who is God should be made Man, or he who is man should be made a man of God? which is the more wonderful? which the more difficult?’ What hath Christ promised us? That which as yet we see not; that is, that we should be His men, and reign with Him, and never die? This is so to say with difficulty believed, that a man once born should arrive at that life, where he shall never die. This is what we believe with a heart well cleansed, cleansed, I mean, of the world’s dust; that this dust close not up our eye of faith. This it is that we are bid believe, that after we have been dead, we shall be even with our dead bodies in life, where we shall never die.” (Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, 80:4)

Augustine doesn’t see Luke 22:32 as a reference to papal infallibility, but instead sees the faith and its being kept from failing as comparable to what other passages say about other believers:

“So then that we may pray, let us believe; and that this same faith whereby we pray fail not, let us pray. Faith pours out prayer, and the pouring out of prayer obtains the strengthening of faith. Faith, I say, pours out prayer, the pouring out of prayer obtains strengthening even for faith itself. For that faith might not fail in temptations, therefore did the Lord say, ‘Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.’ ‘Watch,’ He saith, ‘and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.’ What is to ‘enter into temptation,’ but to depart from faith? For so far temptation advances as faith gives way: and so far temptation gives way, as faith advances. For that you may know, Beloved, more plainly, that the Lord said, ‘Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation,’ as touching faith lest it should fail and perish; He said in the same place of the Gospel ‘This night hath Satan desired to sift you as wheat, and I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not.’ He that defendeth prayeth, and shall not he pray who is in peril? For in the words of the Lord, ‘when the Son of Man shall come, thinkest thou that He shall find faith on the earth?’ He spoke of that faith, which is perfect. For it is scarce found on the earth. Lo! this Church of God is full: and who would come hither, if there were no faith? But who would not remove mountains, if there were full faith? Look at the very Apostles: they would not have left all they had, have trodden under foot this world’s hope, and followed the Lord, if they had not had great faith; and yet if they had full faith, they would not have said to the Lord, ‘Increase our faith.’ See again, that man confessing both of himself (behold faith, yet not full faith), who when he had presented to the Lord his son to be cured of an evil spirit, and was asked whether he believed, answered and said, ‘Lord, I believe, help Thou mine unbelief.’ ‘Lord,’ says he, ‘I believe,’ I believe; therefore there was faith. But ‘help Thou mine unbelief,’ therefore there was not full faith.” (Sermon 65:1)

 

[Mannyfit75]

Is there any?

home.inreach.com/bstanley/papacy.htm

If there are, is that supported by the ECF’s?

catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

 

[Mannyfit75]

Hailmary,

I have yet to meet a Catholic who could accurately tell me the proper use of Papal infallibility (I am Catholic BTW) and in 30 years I have never understood papal infallibility or what exactly has been infallibly declared within the Church., and all doctrines which have been infallibly declared. The area is so grey to me that the papal infallibility position becomes untenable. Especially when you factor in statements by previous Popes that contradict future Vatican councils.

If they are opinions and he is not speaking in faith and moral in his Teaching Office, they are not infallible. Second, so called contradictions are you talking about? There isn’t none.

Popes have authorized the use of torture in Papal Bulls, is that infallibly declared? If so is it moral for me to torture modern day enemies of the Church? If it was infallibly declared it would be…

Papal Bulls are not infallible statement. They are legal statement use to discipline disobedient priests, bishops, and laymen and women. These statements are not binding in term of teaching Ex-Cathedra.

Wikipedia defines Papal Bull as the following:

A Papal bull is a special kind of patent or charter issued by a pope. It is named after the seal (bulla) that was appended to the end to authenticate it.

Papal bulls were originally issued by the pope for many kinds of communication of a public nature, but after the fifteenth century, only for the most formal or solemn of occasions. Modern scholars have retroactively used the term “bull” to describe any elaborate papal document issued in the form of a decree or privilege (solemn or simple), and to some less elaborate ones issued in the form of a letter. Popularly, the name is used for any papal document that contains a metal seal.

Papal bulls have been in use at least since the sixth century, but the term was not first used until around the middle of the thirteenth century and then only for internal un-official papal record keeping purposes; the term had become official by the fifteenth century, when one of the offices of the Papal chancery was named the “register of bulls” (registrum bullarum).

Today, the bull is the only written communication in which the pope will refer to himself as episcopus servus servorum Dei, meaning “Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God.” For instance, Benedict XVI, when he issues a decree in bull form, will begin the document with Benedictus, Episcopus, Servus Servorum Dei. While it used to always bear a metal seal, it now does so only on the most solemn occasions. It is today the most formal type of letters patent issued by the Vatican Chancery in the name of the pope.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_bull

 

[myfavoritmartin]

One more thing, can someone tell me (summarize please, no lengthy articles) why Galileo was condemned?

Galileo’s Papal condemnation…

Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo
(June 22, 1633)
Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled “On the Sunspots,” wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture: This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:
The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

 

[lukewarm]

If they are opinions and he is not speaking in faith and moral in his Teaching Office, they are not infallible. Second, so called contradictions are you talking about? There isn’t none

In the council of florence it was stated “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation”.

Pope Eugene the IV, Council of Florence, 1441

"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire “which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,” (Mt. 25:41)

Boniface VIII in the Bull ‘Unam Sanctum’ (1302 A.D.):

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Now I could get you what the Catechism states now on these subjects, but you probably know that Muslims are invited as part of God’s plan for salvation, and pretty much everyone can gain salvation without being in the Catholic Church. Not that I even disagree with that, but considering that it contradicts previous Papal statements doesn’t help the cause for infallibility. When you claim infallilibility anything other than a 100% success rate means the position is untenable.

So again what exactly is infallible? If these pronouncements clearly by the Pope and councils on matters of faith and morals aren’t infallible, what exactly are?

 

[NotWorthy]

Galileo’s Papal condemnation…

Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo
(June 22, 1633)
Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled “On the Sunspots,” wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture: This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:
The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

So what is false in this statement. The sun isn’t the center of the world.

Galileo didn’t invent the thought that the earth rotated around the sun. A Fr. Capernicaus (?) had invented (well, maybe formalized is a better term) it decades earlier, and the Catholic Church didn’t have a problem with it.

But Galileo, as I understand it, used this teaching to prove that the Holy Scriptures are inaccurate. He said, if this story is wrong (Joshua and Moses each stopping the sun), then how can we trust the veracity of the rest of the Scriptures. Am I wrong in this assumption?

 

[Church_Militant]

Galileo’s Papal condemnation…

Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo
(June 22, 1633)
Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled “On the Sunspots,” wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture: This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:
The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

LOL…sounds about the same way young earthers talk about all the rest of us…

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Sorry, Simon, I’m a little late to the game.

How about John 16:13. As you probably know, the Church teaches that when Jesus is talking to just the Apostles, He’s teaching the Church.

Hi John!
Did Jesus give the “church” all knowledge in John 16:13, that only later generations were able to define? Just curious!

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi John!
Did Jesus give the “church” all knowledge in John 16:13, that only later generations were able to define? Just curious!

The Spirit will guide us to the Truth, not spoon-feed it to us in one huge gulp.

The Church, just as with Israel, is like a child that must grow in Her understanding of God. Do we understand the Trinity better than the Church at the turn of the first century? Of course we do, though we don’t understand it completely and never will. With some understandings come the key to unlocking others. Mary, as the Mother of God, couldn’t develop until we wrapped our feeble minds around the Truth that Jesus is True God AND True Man in one Person.

All of this comes with the Spirit’s guidance, just as Jesus promised us.

You see the same thing in the Old Testament with Israel.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Papal Bulls are not infallible statement. They are legal statement use to discipline disobedient priests, bishops, and laymen and women. These statements are not binding in term of teaching Ex-Cathedra.

Sounds Ex cathedra, take a listen…

Alexander VII created the Papal Bull, Speculatores Dominus Israel
He stated , explicitly in the Bull:

…having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm, and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience…

First, attaching the entire Index to a Bull and approving it with Apostolic authority carries significant weight in itself. Then, attaching previous Indexes, confirming them and approving them with Apostolic authority only adds more weight

 

[Mannyfit75]

lukewarm:

In the council of florence it was stated “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation”.

Pope Eugene the IV, Council of Florence, 1441

"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire “which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,” (Mt. 25:41)

There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. The Church still affirms that.

Boniface VIII in the Bull ‘Unam Sanctum’ (1302 A.D.):

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Now I could get you what the Catechism states now on these subjects, but you probably know that Muslims are invited as part of God’s plan for salvation, and pretty much everyone can gain salvation without being in the Catholic Church. Not that I even disagree with that, but considering that it contradicts previous Papal statements doesn’t help the cause for infallibility. When you claim infallilibility anything other than a 100% success rate means the position is untenable.

So again what exactly is infallible? If these pronouncements clearly by the Pope on matters of faith and morals aren’t, what exactly are?

I know what the Catechism says concerning Non-Believers. The statements.

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator,

in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."

Since God created them, he written in their (all of humanity) hearts, to seek Him, to know Him, love Him, and serve Him. By their faith, they will be lead to seek the Truth, which will lead them to Jesus Christ, and His Church (Catholic Church. Those who willing ignore the message of the Gospel and reject them fully cannot attain the Kingdom prepare for those of the righteous.

The Church affirms that upon a death, God judges him according to their deeds, and they will taken into the account in everything they have done in this life.

To give an testimony to this, there have been Jews and Muslims converting to the Catholic Church year, and as well as Non-Christians, and even Protestants, and some Orthodox.

The Holy Spirit converts people. He moves them.

To those who remain Non-Catholic, by their owns deeds, God will give them a chance to decide for themselves a chance in accepting Jesus Christ, by granting them mercy, if they die and are truly sorry for their sins, and have contritely feel sorry for their sinful actions. God is Mercy itself and he can do all things possible. He can work his way outside the sacraments of the Church because God himself founded them. The thief at the cross gives a testimony to this. The thief was not baptized, but he was save because he confessed his sins to Jesus Christ and in contritely felt sorry for having committed the sin.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

The Spirit will guide us to the Truth, not spoon-feed it to us in one huge gulp.

The Church, just as with Israel, is like a child that must grow in Her understanding of God. Do we understand the Trinity better than the Church at the turn of the first century? Of course we do, though we don’t understand it completely and never will. With some understandings come the key to unlocking others. Mary, as the Mother of God, couldn’t develop until we wrapped our feeble minds around the Truth that Jesus is True God AND True Man in one Person.

All of this comes with the Spirit’s guidance, just as Jesus promised us.

You see the same thing in the Old Testament with Israel.

John what about doctrines like Mary’s sinlessness that where rejected by earlier generations?
You know both Augustine and Tertullian disagree with you on this…One says all knowledge was given to the apostles at that time (Tertullian) and the other says this speaks of ALL believers (Augustine) not just apostles/church as you call it.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Sounds Ex cathedra, take a listen…

Alexander VII created the Papal Bull, Speculatores Dominus Israel
He stated , explicitly in the Bull:

…having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm, and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience…

First, attaching the entire Index to a Bull and approving it with Apostolic authority carries significant weight in itself. Then, attaching previous Indexes, confirming them and approving them with Apostolic authority only adds more weight

How can you been certain if they are infallible? Are you expert in Canon Law? They aren’t infallible. Papal were never were.

Through Church history, the Pope have official use Ex-Cathedra by declaring the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. The Magisterium of the Church also affirms other moral law like contraception as immoral evil.

 

[lukewarm]

So Papal Bulls aren’t infallible according to MannyFit, what is infallible then? Shouldn’t there be a simple list of actual infallibly declared Papal statements somewhere?

I can read what was stated at the council of Florence, I can’t use the mental gymnastics necessary to get that to jive with what the Church now teaches, they are blatantly contradictory statements.