Still having difficulty understanding infallibility

[KathleenGee]

Flesh and blood will not reveal to you that the Holy Father teaches infallibly when he is teaching faith and morals…only your Father in heaven can affirm that to you.

So…as I had to do…as a spiritual adult, I had to come to Christ on my own two feet, no more depending on my parents, and affirm my faith and life in Him.

Likewise…with my father’s observation, that I always had a lack of faith in the Church…it made me turn to this reality…and became a great grace that led me to make an act of faith to believe in Christ and through Christ that the Catholic Church is truly of His making.

Since then, I have never turned back.

 

[tskrobacz]

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.

Wrong…Roe vs Wade is the final ruling of the courts. Unless a law is enacted that changes something it remains infallible. Similarly, if a new truth is revealed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit then the Church too will change…or do you also doubt that God is capable of such things? The only absolute is God himself.

 

[PRmerger]

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

Could be. Could be.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Yet Paul calls himself “your father in Christ”, right?

And do you not think Paul is holy? Especially now that he’s in heaven?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

The above is a non-sequitur, AP.

You have not addressed what authority you use to discern what’s a “core belief” and what’s, er, “non-core”.

It’s not Scripture. So what is it?

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.

 

[PRmerger]

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”

Well, yes, but I don’t like the term “exclusive church”. It is the “universal church” so by definition it’s not exclusive.

But I get what you’re saying. There can only be One Body.

Do you not agree with that?

Do you think Christ came to establish many bodies? He’s a head of a multi-corporeal entity? Perhaps like something found in Revelation?

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”.

I have to say I disagree with my friend Coptic Christian here. He agrees with the above corollary.

I say that I do not claim to know by what status God judges the AofG or SDAs or JWs or Methodists. I am certain He is present at their worship services. I am certain that the Holy Spirit dwells within them.

But, it would be correct to say that they do not have the FULLNESS of truth and in that, I suppose, their “status” (again, not a word I prefer to use when discussing religion in this context) is, well, “lower”.

 

[KathleenGee]

Christ is definitely present in those who believe in Him and worship Him.

But it is in the Catholic Church that the fullness of Jesus Christ is revealed…through the Word of God, of the 7 sacraments, and lawful ecclesial ministers, the latter in context of defining doctrines and administration of the Church.

Certainly we can find a more Christlike believer in a Protestant than a lukewarm Catholic.

 

[Michael19682]

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.

It interesting, Richard, that you have mastered Catholic doctrine better than I who was raised Catholic. I simply want to add a few comments. English and Latin are two different languages. Latin has a far more rigorous temporal tense structure than English. Catholic doctrine primarily comes from Latin sources and that is the Church’s mother tongue. Perhaps our conceptions of time and subject differ so much on account of our cultural derivatives that we are really not using the same word or talking about the same thing.

Simple statements like “Today is December 6th, 2011” are good and infallible but they have a time limit of twenty four hours. You noted that ‘when’ the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he speaks infallibly. What he says, therefore, is said in time. When in time? When he speaks. When he stops speaking ex cathedra, the time has passed. I just suppose that we say the Pope is infallible because theoretically he can speak ex cathedra whenever he wants. Nobody but Him knows what he is going to say next. His infallibility is part of our way of life. I might disagree on a superficial selfish level with what he says, but inwardly I always know that his ex cathedra speech is infallible. If I disobey, I am aware of it and sorry for it. Funny, I’ve never actually heard this Pope speak in person.

 

[Michael19682]

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

Could someone confirm if I got it right?

Pitcharan, Jesus stumbled, nay, fell three times while carrying the cross, obeying his Heavenly Father. What if a person did stumble by the Pope’s teaching? PJPII was famous for saying “Be not afraid!” as Jesus said “Fear not, little flock.” God protects us from harm, but there is always the possibility of stumbling.

 

[KathleenGee]

When the Pope speaks infallibly, it is the Lord Who is working through Him, just as it was the case when the Heavenly Father worked through Peter to exclaim that Christ is the Messiah. Peter did not do that of himself and the same with the Holy Father.

But doing so, the Holy Father is not the Messiah, not the Lord, not the savior, just as we witnessed Peter. He is speaking in the Person of Christ.

And he may make a decree…for the sake of unity among the faithful.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

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.

Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter all the apostles and to you and me. It’s called the bible, or the word of God. More specifically the words of Jesus.

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.

This is blasphemy, Jesus did not appoint nor does He need an earthly representative.

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.

In a previous post you said

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.

Now you are saying that he is.

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.

The rock that Christ built His church on was Himself, not Peter.

1 Corinthians 10
1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

3And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

 

[Waiting]

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

Could someone confirm if I got it right?

Actually, no, this isn’t quite right. The Pope could teach a Bible study group and make a mistake. It’s highly unlikely, but possible. The Pope is infallible when he’s making an official pronoucement about faith and morals that all Catholics are obligated to believe. An example would be the Immaculate Conception of Mary. This is a rare instance.

 

[PRmerger]

This is blasphemy, Jesus did not appoint nor does He need an earthly representative.

Richard, this is a very, very serious curse to hurl at a Christian. If you are going to make this charge then you ought to provide a Bible verse that says, “Jesus did not appoint any earthly representative” and “Jesus does not need an earthly representative.”

Book, chapter and verse, please.

 

[KathleenGee]

Jesus Christ was the one who asked the apostles who He was…and Peter answered, and Christ said Peter did not do that on his own, but through the Heavenly Father.

Christ said He would build His Church on Peter…not all the apostles. Peter would have the keys to eternal life. The Apostles were all authentic witnesses, chosen by Christ Himself to be part of the foundation of His church, and to establish local churches.

Richard, you are denying Sacred Scripture in the reality that Christ did indeed single Peter out. Don’t see that at all as blasphemy, and the role of Peter continues in each generation for 2,000 years…

You can’t have multiple heads or multiple interpretations because then faith is reduced to the thinking of men.

 

[KathleenGee]

Again, the Bible…a book open to interpretation does not hold the keys to heaven. That is false…where is that in the Bible?..

 

[KathleenGee]

Richard…

Let me back up…I went to sit down and reflect on your words…no, it wasn’t a confessional type musing…but I have been reading your posts for some time…and I am now getting the feeling of being very, very, very lonely…

I mean, when I read your words…they sound hard…not on me…really…but in how you perceive God working…

Does your Christianity have any saints in its history? Who are they and what did they do?..

Some how focusing your faith on text some how leaves out humanity…like it is the Bible and me…and no church…like…is the center of your faith having a bible…?

In my church, I would say we are in the processing of being redeemed…redemptive…redeeming…Christ’s grace working through humanity and not so much text…

Like if you base your faith on text, then Christ’s grace really in all actuality is not working and redeeming mankind…and the world – I don’t mean the sin – but the accomplishments of humanity in law, education, science…have all worked in redeeming man’s condition…the working of grace…and I see humane developments for the betterment of mankind the presence of Christ in the world.

I can’t see how you can use the Bible and refuse to see Christ work in men chosen by Him to begin His church, or Christ not have the ability to choose one particular man as The Rock…the carnate form of Christ’s presence…I mean…our confidence is in Christ and not Peter in himself as a sinner…

You come across not believe that Christ can work through the human condition to do his work…like there was no Incarnation, there is no redemption at work in us…If you don’t have the Bible in your hands…and I relate more to the Oral Tradition…then you do not have Christ working…or something…

Instead we Catholics see Christ have the ability to pass His authority onto fragile human beings…He recognized His Heavenly Father at work when Peter was able to call Christ the Messiah…and then a short time later, we witness Christ rebuking Satan in Peter…fragile clay…Treasures in clay…

So you don’t trust Christ working in human beings? What happened to the Redeemer??? Some how holding just on to a Bible and not trusting Christ at work in us leaves me empty, less than human. Just a reflection.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Jesus Christ was the one who asked the apostles who He was…and Peter answered, and Christ said Peter did not do that on his own, but through the Heavenly Father.

Christ said He would build His Church on Peter…not all the apostles. Peter would have the keys to eternal life. The Apostles were all authentic witnesses, chosen by Christ Himself to be part of the foundation of His church, and to establish local churches.

This is your erroneous interpretation of Matt 16

Richard, you are denying Sacred Scripture in the reality that Christ did indeed single Peter out. Don’t see that at all as blasphemy, and the role of Peter continues in each generation for 2,000 years…

No, I am denying your interpretation of scripture.

You can’t have multiple heads or multiple interpretations because then faith is reduced to the thinking of men.

Whose to say your interpretation is correct? Seems to me it’s just one among many.

 

[ExplosiveOxygen]

Nothing is infallible that is not perfect. Perfection can not be achieved, only approached. It is the limit to which there is no improvement.

Question everything.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I shortened your post so I could get all of mine in.

Richard…

Let me back up…I went to sit down and reflect on your words…no, it wasn’t a confessional type musing…but I have been reading your posts for some time…and I am now getting the feeling of being very, very, very lonely…

Like if you base your faith on text, then Christ’s grace really in all actuality is not working and redeeming mankind…and the world – I don’t mean the sin – but the accomplishments of humanity in law, education, science…have all worked in redeeming man’s condition…the working of grace…and I see humane developments for the betterment of mankind the presence of Christ in the world.

So you don’t trust Christ working in human beings? What happened to the Redeemer??? Some how holding just on to a Bible and not trusting Christ at work in us leaves me empty, less than human. Just a reflection.

31He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

32And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.

33He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.

34For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

35The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

36He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

1Jn.5
9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

11And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

Jn.5
37And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

38And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

41I receive not honour from men.

42But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.

43I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

44How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.

47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

John 6:68
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

Jn8
31Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

33They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

34Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

35And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.

36If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

37I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

38I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

39They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

40But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

41Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

42Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

46Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

47He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

It certainly appears from my reading of scripture that the words of Jesus are pretty important

 

[AmateurPianist]

The above is a non-sequitur, AP.

You have not addressed what authority you use to discern what’s a “core belief” and what’s, er, “non-core”.

It’s not Scripture. So what is it?

Ah…might be a poor choice of wording on my part.

Remember the context of this discussion.

I was having difficulty understanding how the word infallibility can be applied to anything that ultimately is taken by faith and is not provable. Like the statement “God Exists”.

Then somebody mentioned that even mathematics (which relies upon proofs) has a small set of assumptions that must be accepted and upon which the whole field rests.

That answer prompted a light bulb to go on in my head that maybe Christianity also has a small set of assumptions that just must be believed and accepted as true. Because ultimately they are not provable from anything else.

I called these “core beliefs”. Maybe I should have called them something else.

But in the context of this discussion at least in my mind, a core belief would not be something that logically follows from another belief. It is not the same as “essential” versus “non essential”. At least that is what I was thinking.

In the context of what I was thinking at the time, beliefs like the assumption of Mary (which logically follows from Papal Infallibility) would not be a core belief. It would only be those beliefs that are necessary to get to Papal Infalliblity.

That was my thought process at the time. If I had thunk, I probably could have made myself more clear.

But in answer to your question, I do think the earliest church in their creeds did a pretty good job of defining essential versus not essential. But that is not quite where my thinking in this thread was going.