Still having difficulty understanding infallibility

[Michael19682]

You’re kidding! You think that an infallible decision is relative and subject to change, which would of coarse make that decision not infallible any more. Is that what you are saying, that infallibility can become not infallible because a subsequent “final authority” says it isn’t?

Basically. Try comparing one moment to the next. We live in the present and we act according to a hope for our future welfare. The Gospel is that hope. I believe the Pope fights off the work of the devil, who is very shifty. The devil shifts the ground beneath our feet so that what was once the correct way forward is no longer so. But the Gospel is Light and not the shifting ground, so really this relativity you speak of is not a change in course but a renewed call to see the Light. Decisions are made with available evidence. When the evidence changes a new decision is made that remains final until a new change in evidence. The Church is still alive and prospering and the Pope has always been its final authority. If a Pope sees a dire need to save his flock. why shouldn’t he be free to change a past decision according to the new evidence of danger? The Gospel can’t be changed – just ask the LDS Church – but likewise as your example of Hitler shows, a man or many men can be induced to ignore or defy it.

To use a legal example, take the product label warnings on foods. One minute its good for you and the next its a poison. Do the labels affect the reality of the nutritional value of the food? Not that we know of. But the minute the evidence changes, the goverment has to warn us or possibly encourage us (depending on its moods).

All that can be said of an infallible decision that has been changed is that it was once infallible according to the evidence on which it was based. What remains always infallible is the authority of the position of the Pope to make such decisions. All Pope’s make only infallible decisions. In a certain sense, one Pope’s decision, even when on the same subject as a past Pope’s decision, is unrelated to it. The relationship of Popes to each other is a spiritual apostolic succession. Spirit is constant. The people the Pope is trying to protect are constantly changing their views and predilections. Time and again the Gospels have proven to be sound advice for humanity. The number of moral situations that face man are innumerable. It looks like the Gospel effectively truncates these into moral categories which reappear over and over again. Pope’s are infallible because their decisions are based on applying the finality of the Gospels. Still, if people abandon the Gospel, then following them on their erroneous path might be the only way to Bring Them Back. Jesus said that if a sheep was to become lost, what good shepard would not go in search of it - implying that he would leave the others of the flock while he is searching.

 

[KathleenGee]

Richard,

Do you have children? If you are as literal as you claim, then your children should not be calling you ‘father’.

You have to look at the culture and how Catholics came to call the Holy Father, “Papa”.

Pope is English, and England has been very anti-catholic.

Have you ever heard the Latins call the Holy Father as such?..it is pastoral and not meaning he is taking the place of God. Your responses imply that you think he is.

 

[15thClub]

In his book and DVD series on Catholicism, Father Barron gives what I think is the best answer on the concept of Papal Infallibility. Infallibility pertains to the Holy Father’s understanding of Christ and when one thinks about it a little more, it makes sense. The Holy Father is the successor to Peter and the scriptures tell us that Peter knew Jesus better than the other disciple. Thus our Holy Father has been discerned by the Holy Spirit through his peers, the College of Cardinals to demonstrate an understanding of Christ better than his peers. Within the confines of this understanding therefore, the Holy Father along with the Holy See, can render and referee the volumes of thought and faithful struggle of doctrine to advance Christ’s commission to all of us.

 

[tskrobacz]

"It’s infallible because it is final? Wow! So Hitlers decision to execute 6,000,000 Jews was an infallible decision because it was a final decision by the highest authority in Germany at the time? I know Roe v. Wde is the law of the land, but YOU are saying that it is infallible.

I seriously doubt that the legal system in Germany was in sync with Hitler and he is not the supreme court of Germany no more than the President is in the US.

With respect to Roe vs Wade the decision of the Supreme court is indeed infallible with respect to the state laws upon which the decision was made. In the future it is possible, hopefully likely, that new laws will emerge that super cede the ruling of that case. Until then it is the final and now ruling position of the court.

 

[AmateurPianist]

And you have already acknowledged (in another thread) that you submit to the authority of the Catholic Church in discerning what consists of “Scripture”.

This is huge, AP.

In acknowledging that you submit to the authority of you acknowledge that there is an authority outside of Scripture.

And, to revisit our discussion, in this acknowledgement you give a tacit understanding of the dogma of infallibility. (Typed it correctly this time. )

Unless you believe that this “universal church” erred in discerning that the Shepherd of Hermas is not inspired but that Titus is.

I probably have limited time today.

I am finding that I am getting confused and need time to think. When things get complex it is probably because I am missing something.

The issue is whether the word “infallible” can really be applied to anything that is in the realm of belief. For example: is the statement “God exists” a fallible or infallible statement. If that is a fallible statement, then any statements about God are logically fallible.

I see very good arguments on both sides here.

Maybe the most honest way to view this now is something like “I have a non-negotiable set of core beliefs that as far as I am concerned are unable to be incorrect (infallible)”.

This may not be a logical statement, but it might work. Still thinking, but it might work.

That way, while human belief itself is fallible, outside of that, the belief is just non negotiable.

So the issue then is to choose these core beliefs carefully.

Anyway, I have no problem with “The Bible is what it claims to be” as a unnegotiable core belief. And I think if you hold that, a necessary corollary must be “The contents of the Bible are these books but not these books”. And unless you are into deciding your own personal canon, you end up accepting somebody else’s decision as true.

Still thinking.

 

[PRmerger]

I probably have limited time today.

I am finding that I am getting confused and need time to think. When things get complex it is probably because I am missing something.

The issue is whether the word “infallible” can really be applied to anything that is in the realm of belief. For example: is the statement “God exists” a fallible or infallible statement. If that is a fallible statement, then any statements about God are logically fallible.

I see very good arguments on both sides here.

Maybe the most honest way to view this now is something like “I have a non-negotiable set of core beliefs that as far as I am concerned are unable to be incorrect (infallible)”.

This may not be a logical statement, but it might work. Still thinking, but it might work.

That way, while human belief itself is fallible, outside of that, the belief is just non negotiable.

So the issue then is to choose these core beliefs carefully.

Anyway, I have no problem with “The Bible is what it claims to be” as a unnegotiable core belief. And I think if you hold that, a necessary corollary must be “The contents of the Bible are these books but not these books”. And unless you are into deciding your own personal canon, you end up accepting somebody else’s decision as true.

Still thinking.

Love your honesty and integrity! You’re cool.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Fair enough.

However, let’s take another “essential” doctrine you believe from the Scriptures: God is a Trinity.

That is more than reading the Scripture verse A and repeating A.

It involves interpretation.

Do you ever give as much doubt to this Dogma of the Trinity as you do to the concept of infallibility? (Stop making me type that word!)

This is a very good point that gives some thought.

The first question that comes to mind is whether an interpretation of Scripture is provable. And what constitutes Scriptural proof. (I have always felt that Scriptural proof is possible but difficult and am not sure what it constitutes yet). And finally is the Trinity Scripturaly provable?

If it is not provable should one give for example the JW interpretation of Scripture as much consideration as the traditional interpretation. (In the end I would reject it for the same reason I reject all new approaches to Scripture).

The third option would be to elevate the belief in the Trinity to a non negotiable core belief.

Anyway, good questions that deserve thought.

 

[AmateurPianist]

The 10 commandments…written in stone…infallible…

Murder. Can’t do it…Abortion has been a constant teaching of the Church as morally wrong infallibly based on the infallible commandment not to murder…Protestants have varied on this…and Contraception is part of that…

Adultery. Homosexuality…The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality. The Church declares infallibly that sins against Chastity are sins against adultery and states this infallibly.

Because of the authority of the Church based on the authority of the supreme law giver, because the Church is the mystery hidden for all ages through which the manifold wisdom of God is known…

And one more good point.

As a Christian I believe that morality is absolute and non negotiable.

Of course from reading the Bible in most cases this is A=A and an interpretive layer is not needed. “Thou shalt not kill” means “Thou shalt not kill” for example.

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe the most honest way to view this now is something like “I have a non-negotiable set of core beliefs that as far as I am concerned are unable to be incorrect (infallible)”.

This may not be a logical statement, but it might work. Still thinking, but it might work.

That way, while human belief itself is fallible, outside of that, the belief is just non negotiable.

Okay. We believe the same thing here. There *are *some non-negotiable core beliefs, that are indeed infallible–one example is the Incarnation. Another is the Trinity. Another is the virgin birth. Another is the 2 natures of Christ. Some are explicit in Scripture. Some are not.

But who determines what’s a “core belief” and what’s not? The Scriptures don’t tell us, do they?

In order to declare something to be an essential vs a non-essential, one needs to use some *other *authority, something NOT Scripture. What’s yours?

Mine is the authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[adf417]

In order to declare something to be an essential vs a non-essential, one needs to use some *other *authority, something NOT Scripture. What’s yours?

Mine is the authority of the Catholic Church.

This is starting to look like we are close to the realm of oral or sacred scripture argument???

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Basically. Try comparing one moment to the next. We live in the present and we act according to a hope for our future welfare. The Gospel is that hope. I believe the Pope fights off the work of the devil, who is very shifty. The devil shifts the ground beneath our feet so that what was once the correct way forward is no longer so. But the Gospel is Light and not the shifting ground, so really this relativity you speak of is not a change in course but a renewed call to see the Light. Decisions are made with available evidence. When the evidence changes a new decision is made that remains final until a new change in evidence. The Church is still alive and prospering and the Pope has always been its final authority. If a Pope sees a dire need to save his flock. why shouldn’t he be free to change a past decision according to the new evidence of danger? The Gospel can’t be changed – just ask the LDS Church – but likewise as your example of Hitler shows, a man or many men can be induced to ignore or defy it.

To use a legal example, take the product label warnings on foods. One minute its good for you and the next its a poison. Do the labels affect the reality of the nutritional value of the food? Not that we know of. But the minute the evidence changes, the goverment has to warn us or possibly encourage us (depending on its moods).

All that can be said of an infallible decision that has been changed is that it was once infallible according to the evidence on which it was based. What remains always infallible is the authority of the position of the Pope to make such decisions. All Pope’s make only infallible decisions. In a certain sense, one Pope’s decision, even when on the same subject as a past Pope’s decision, is unrelated to it. The relationship of Popes to each other is a spiritual apostolic succession. Spirit is constant. The people the Pope is trying to protect are constantly changing their views and predilections. Time and again the Gospels have proven to be sound advice for humanity. The number of moral situations that face man are innumerable. It looks like the Gospel effectively truncates these into moral categories which reappear over and over again. Pope’s are infallible because their decisions are based on applying the finality of the Gospels. Still, if people abandon the Gospel, then following them on their erroneous path might be the only way to Bring Them Back. Jesus said that if a sheep was to become lost, what good shepard would not go in search of it - implying that he would leave the others of the flock while he is searching.

Here is a definition of infallible

Definition of INFALLIBLE
1: incapable of error : unerring
2: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain
3: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

The Catholic position on the pope’s infallibility apparently is that as you say when the pope speaks ex cathedra, he speaks infallibly. Which means that the Catholic view is that what the pope says is also infallible or not subject to error. So if what the pope says is incapable of error, it also cannot be changed, BY ANYONE. I must add that I subscribe to non of this. And I find it rather strange that I have to explain this to a Catholic.

The bottom line is infallibility is not relative. If something is infallible it is an absolute truth. It cannot become not infallible.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Holy Spirit protects the papacy from error when teaching faith and morals…faith in Christ and Christian morality.

We have plenty of public witness to that.

 

[Pitcharan]

This is my understanding of infallible: Pope can never cause anyone to stumble by his teaching.

Could someone confirm if I got it right?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard,

Do you have children? If you are as literal as you claim, then your children should not be calling you ‘father’.

I merely pointed out that the term Holy Father is only found once in the bible in Jn.17:11 and that was a reference to our heavenly Father and not the pope.

You have to look at the culture and how Catholics came to call the Holy Father, “Papa”.

Pope is English, and England has been very anti-catholic.

Have you ever heard the Latins call the Holy Father as such?..it is pastoral and not meaning he is taking the place of God. Your responses imply that you think he is.

What do you mean by “Latins”.

The pope is often refered to by Catholics as the “Vicar of Christ” This means one who takes the place of Christ.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I seriously doubt that the legal system in Germany was in sync with Hitler and he is not the supreme court of Germany no more than the President is in the US.

Hitler was the absolute despotic final authority in Germany in the 30’s and in most of Europe in the early 40’s

With respect to Roe vs Wade the decision of the Supreme court is indeed infallible with respect to the state laws upon which the decision was made. In the future it is possible, hopefully likely, that new laws will emerge that super cede the ruling of that case. Until then it is the final and now ruling position of the court.

Again infallibility cannot be held subject to the whims of a state or a countries laws. If something is infallible it is not subject to change. It is absolute. Roe v. Wade is not infallible for the simple fact that it is subject to error.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Okay. We believe the same thing here. There *are *some non-negotiable core beliefs, that are indeed infallible–one example is the Incarnation. Another is the Trinity. Another is the virgin birth. Another is the 2 natures of Christ. Some are explicit in Scripture. Some are not.

But who determines what’s a “core belief” and what’s not? The Scriptures don’t tell us, do they?

In order to declare something to be an essential vs a non-essential, one needs to use some *other *authority, something NOT Scripture. What’s yours?

Mine is the authority of the Catholic Church.

But then you must have other core beliefs that to you are non-negotiable.

I would say you must have at a minimum this belief:

“The Catholic church is today the exclusive church of Jesus Christ from God’s perspective”

A necessary corollary of this is that “all other organizations are not of the same status as the Catholic church in the eyes of God”.

This would be a unprovable core belief that have chosen to adopt as your own.

There might be others, or you might consider the others as necessary outgrowths of the above. But at a minumum you must have the above.

 

[CopticChristian]

But then you must have other core beliefs that to you are non-negotiable.

I would say you must have at a minimum this belief:

"The Catholic church is today the exclusive church of Jesus Christ from God’s perspective"
A necessary corollary of this is that “all other organizations are not of the same status as the Catholic church in the eyes of God”.

This would be a unprovable core belief that have chosen to adopt as your own.

There might be others, or you might consider the others as necessary outgrowths of the above. But at a minumum you must have the above.

That would be correct and as you examine what is in the world there are those things that are true and those things that are false…

19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Paul tells the Romans that the world and what God has done in the world is a testament to what God has done…there is no boasting in being the OHCAC…it is not a work of man……lest any man boast…

 

[KathleenGee]

Richard,

Latins are Italian, Spanish, Portuguese speaking people whose origins are Catholic. “Papa” is a name of endearment. They are not calling the Pope, ‘Christ’ or Anointed One or Messiah or Savior or Redeemer or – Lord.

Papa is a household name. Papa is a familial name that endearment to one that gives his life for his loved ones.

 

[KathleenGee]

The seat of Peter holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven where the Lord desire our reunion with Him forever.

Note the keys do not fit hell or gnostic form of enlightenment. The keys to heaven is the opening, the way to heaven, to eternal life. Christ did not give the keys of heaven to the other disciples but to Peter.

The Vicar of Christ is His living representative on earth, a sinner like us, but one who is chosen none other than by Christ Himself. The seat of Peter reveals not only the way to eternal life with the keys to the kingdom of heaven, but also the Living Revelation of Jesus Christ Himself.

Subsequently, the role of Peter in the papacy providing Living Revelation of Jesus Christ – today has its power, its being chosen and sending forth by witness to Jesus Christ from the original 12 apostles – continued by Christ today.

It is the Holy Spirit at work in the Vicar of Christ, seat of Peter, and not the man. When Peter truthfully identified Christ, Jesus then knew that it was in Peter that the Holy Father was now working in Peter.

This is revealed in Matthew 16: 13-17. 'When Jesus went into the region of Caeserea Philippi he asked his disciples, 'Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”

Now was the time for Christ to begin the essentials of His Church, based not on the spirit of man as schismatics and heretics project, but on Christ Himself. In the following verses, Christ then declares in Matthew 16: 18-19. “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

And to follow up revealing Peter’s own humanity and the forthcoming passion of Christ, Peter then reveals how Satan works through him – after his appointment by Christ to head his Church…to predicting going to Jerusalem, being held before the scribes and pharisees, being killed and rising on the third day, Peter then contradicts by saying in Matthew 16: 22, and Christ responding in 23: “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.” He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do!”

Subsequently we side by side quotes revealing that it is God Himself Who works through Peter in regards to God’s will and the coming life of the Church in Christ, and likewise, Peter is still man and vulnerable to sin and misdirection by Satan. In teaching faith and morals, it is the Holy Spirit Himself who prevents the Holy Father from teaching in error.

Just as we must have faith in Christ, we must ask for the grace of faith to have faith in Peter today and Christ’s Church.

His sheep know Him and He knows His sheep. We know through communion with the Holy Spirit when the Holy Father preaches in the Holy Spirit and when he gives his opinion.

 

[Nicea325]

Here is a definition of infallible

Definition of INFALLIBLE
1: incapable of error : unerring
2: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain
3: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

The Catholic position on the pope’s infallibility apparently is that as you say when the pope speaks ex cathedra, he speaks infallibly. Which means that the Catholic view is that what the pope says is also infallible or not subject to error. So if what the pope says is incapable of error, it also cannot be changed, BY ANYONE. I must add that I subscribe to non of this. And I find it rather strange that I have to explain this to a Catholic.

The bottom line is infallibility is not relative. If something is infallible it is an absolute truth. It cannot become not infallible.

Really Richard? Then explain how you know without a shred of doubt the very exact Bible you practically worship is not lacking any other books vital for our understanding of salvation, being that you do not subscribe to infallibility? Your argument is self-rebuking.