Still having difficulty understanding infallibility

[Michael19682]

Richard,

John 10:11 (Jesus refers to himself as the Good Shephard). Immediately following are verses about the distinction between hired, work for pay shephards (preachers) who have no concern for their sheep and Jesus, who loves his flock so much that he will lay down his life for the sheep. Later, John 15-19, Jesus, who is soon to ascend to Heaven, not only ‘appoints’ Peter Shephard of His flock, but gently ‘cross examines’ him by asking three times the same question, “Do you love me?” Thus he makes clear to Peter and to all who will read that Peter is the same kind of Shephard, feeding, tending, and feeding Jesus’ flock out of Love. The evangelist John calls our first Pope Peter, but Jesus Himself calls him by his birth name…“Simon, son of John,” perhaps indicating that, unlike the name ‘Peter’, which contextually appears earned for his pronouncement of faith and insight into Jesus’ purpose and mission, is rather a station for which he was Chosen by God. I like to think that Jesus’ use of Peter’s Jewish name would draw Peter’s attention back to his heritage, the ten commandments, the first of which is obviously that he shall not have a god other than the Lord. Jesus concludes by saying “Follow me.” Thus, the distinction between Jesus the Shephard and the Pope Peter is perhaps as narrow as the distinction between Jesus and the Father appears to those who doubt. We who are blessed with faith now have the privilege of professing that the two are consubstantial.

 

[PRmerger]

Question everything.

The question logically follows: should we question the dogma: “Question everything!”

(NB: not that I disagree with the dictum. Catholics are called to “test everything”, are we not?")

Heh.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Incidentally, I question your mantra: “nothing is infallible that is not perfect”. Perhaps you mean “nothing is impeccable that is not perfect”?

You seem to be confusing “infallibility” with “impeccability”.

 

[PRmerger]

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”.

Or like the belief that Jesus has 2 natures? You take that on faith, yes?

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.

Yes. Catholic call these things Truths that have been divinely revealed, that we could not deduce from reason alone. Like the Trinity.

That is why Catholic theology places so much emphasis on Faith AND Reason.

Have you read Pope JPII’s magnificent encyclical "Fides et Ratio"?

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.

Ok. So these core beliefs would be things that we don’t understand through reason or Scripture alone, correct? But are things which we only believe because God has spoken?

It is not the same as “essential” versus “non essential”. At least that is what I was thinking.

Fair enough.

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.

Actually, the Assumption of Mary logically follows from our understanding of the Incarnation. Each and every teaching on Mary only serves to affirm and confirm our Christology. Having a defective Mariology leads to a defective Christology.

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.

Awesome. So I think that you are NOT a Sola Scriptura advocate, eh? (Not that I ever heard you propose that you were.)

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard,

John 10:11 (Jesus refers to himself as the Good Shephard). Immediately following are verses about the distinction between hired, work for pay shephards (preachers) who have no concern for their sheep and Jesus, who loves his flock so much that he will lay down his life for the sheep. Later, John 15-19, Jesus, who is soon to ascend to Heaven, not only ‘appoints’ Peter Shephard of His flock, but gently ‘cross examines’ him by asking three times the same question, “Do you love me?” Thus he makes clear to Peter and to all who will read that Peter is the same kind of Shephard, feeding, tending, and feeding Jesus’ flock out of Love. The evangelist John calls our first Pope Peter, but Jesus Himself calls him by his birth name…“Simon, son of John,” perhaps indicating that, unlike the name ‘Peter’, which contextually appears earned for his pronouncement of faith and insight into Jesus’ purpose and mission, is rather a station for which he was Chosen by God. I like to think that Jesus’ use of Peter’s Jewish name would draw Peter’s attention back to his heritage, the ten commandments, the first of which is obviously that he shall not have a god other than the Lord. Jesus concludes by saying “Follow me.” Thus, the distinction between Jesus the Shephard and the Pope Peter is perhaps as narrow as the distinction between Jesus and the Father appears to those who doubt. We who are blessed with faith now have the privilege of professing that the two are consubstantial.

At no point in the Gospel accounts does Jesus relinquish His shepardship to Peter or anyone else. In Jn.10 He makes this clear.

Jn10
11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

12But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

13The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

14I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

In Jn.21 Jesus tells Peter and by extension the rest of the apostles and yes us that believe to FEED His sheep and we find out what He means by this in the great commission.

Matt.28
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The word teach is used twice here. In the Greek two words words are used, the first is matheteou which means to make disciples, the second is didasko which simply means to instruct.
The extent of Peter’s authority over Jesus’ sheep and the way He binds or looses them to or from the heavenly kingdom is relative to the extent that he or us follows Jesus’ instructions in Matt. 28

 

[Michael19682]

Sorry I spelled the word Shepherd wrong so many times. I have a dipthong on the spelling of my name this is likely the cause of it.

Nevertheless, Peter is a Shepherd as Jesus himself makes clear. Furthermore, we know the kind of Shepherd he is.

Your use of the term ‘relinquish’ shows me that you are preoccupied with issues of power. The Gospel makes clear that it is about love for Jesus’ flock.

If you cannot see into your heart to understand this, I cannot help you.

 

[KathleenGee]

Richard,

It is very clear in Sacred Scripture that Christ chose Peter as His visible rock on earth representing Him…I cannot understand how you can misconstrue this passage, unless you have no sense of early Christian history and the primacy of Rome.

Christ is the cornerstone of His Church. He is the Vine and we are His branches.

Back to holding on to the Bible…Jesus never passed out Bible texts at the Last Supper.

If there was anything He was clear about was that we were to eat of His Body and Blood – and if we did not, we would not have eternal life in us.

Which takes us to the next part: He did not have any other followers with Him. Most had left prior to His exclaiming that those who followed Him would eat of His Body and Blood. They thought of cannibalism.

Jesus did not say that you have to hold a text in your hand to gain eternal life.

Why did Jesus not say you must have a Bible to interpret to get to heaven?

Because when you control the text, you control the interpretation.

And to say that our interpretation is one of many is not based on historical fact of sacred unity, but on the dismantling of Christianity based on Sola Scriptura. Without the sacred unity of faith that Christ prayed for at the Last Supper, we are no witness to the world.

Instead, St. Peter said in his second letter to hold on to the traditions the chosen ministers have passed on to them…those being the apostles.

When you control the text to your way of looking at things…and I must add your interpretation is seriously flawed because your form is willfully devoid of the reality of faith of Christianity for 2,000 years – and its continuity – you are on no documented grounds to reduce Catholicism to a mere level of interpretation.

To deny the integrity of faith of 2,000 years of Catholic Faith based on the tradition of faith passed down by the apostles, the witness of martyrs and those living exemplary Christian lives within the Catholic Church is also a form of dishonesty – and inhumanity.

The more people divorce faith from people and cling to their single knowledge of God, the more inhumane and self-righteous they become in the face of those who have held on to the tradition of their apostolic faith.

People who have divorced faith from its history, and especially the reality of Christ’s death and resurrection, have not yet fully experienced the greater reality of Christ as Redeemer.

I do not see the redemptive presence of Christ present in anti-Catholic Christian sects.

You do not trust or believe in Christ to realize He is fully capable of choosing and setting up His church using His apostles as part of His foundation. Your faith only goes so far and it does not recognize or understand the significance of the Incarnation…God coming to meet us as Man…and restoring us and our dignity of man in Christ, being chosen by Christ to be His instruments and His representative in the Vicar of Christ. I find such faith lacking in fullness of redemption.

 

[Nicea325]

This is your erroneous interpretation of Matt 16

No, I am denying your interpretation of scripture.

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

And what makes your interpretation infallible? Why should ANYONE accept your bogus interpretation of Matt 16 versus a Southern Baptist or AOG or JW’s? Tell me Richard which Protestant church out of thousands has the correct interpretation? Remember one’s salvation is at stake.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExplosiveOxygen
Question everything.

So do question your own existence?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
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.

Richard will not answer cause he has NO VERSE to prove it! It is another invention of his due to his poor biblical exegesis.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Awesome. So I think that you are NOT a Sola Scriptura advocate, eh? (Not that I ever heard you propose that you were.)

Depends on how you define Sola Scriptura.(at least from my study).

I prefer to use the words Prima Scriptura. Less confusing.

 

[Nicea325]

Depends on how you define Sola Scriptura.(at least from my study).

I prefer to use the words Prima Scriptura. Less confusing.

And unfortunately that is one of the end results of SS, to each his own as to what it means. Prima Scriptura? First Scripture? How is that different from SS?

 

[ExplosiveOxygen]

Incidentally, I question your mantra: “nothing is infallible that is not perfect”. Perhaps you mean “nothing is impeccable that is not perfect”?

You seem to be confusing “infallibility” with “impeccability”.

I mean what I say. It is definitely not a mantra in any shape or form.

 

[ExplosiveOxygen]

So do question your own existence?

Yes, I do.

 

[PRmerger]

I mean what I say. It is definitely not a mantra in any shape or form.

Well, infallibility only means that an entity is incapable of teaching error. Thus, one need not be perfect in order to have the charism of infallibility.

Now, if one is impeccable, then one is indeed perfect.

 

[PRmerger]

Depends on how you define Sola Scriptura.(at least from my study).

I prefer to use the words Prima Scriptura. Less confusing.

What do you mean by Prima Scriptura?

And does this mean that you believe that you must have Scripture verses to support all of your theological beliefs?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Sorry I spelled the word Shepherd wrong so many times. I have a dipthong on the spelling of my name this is likely the cause of it.

Nevertheless, Peter is a Shepherd as Jesus himself makes clear. Furthermore, we know the kind of Shepherd he is.

Could you show me in which verse He makes Peter a Shepherd

Your use of the term ‘relinquish’ shows me that you are preoccupied with issues of power.

Isn’t this the CC’s position that Jesus made Peter His vicar or one who takes His place, and wouldn’t that entail relinquishing His shepherdship?

The Gospel makes clear that it is about love for Jesus’ flock.

If you cannot see into your heart to understand this, I cannot help you.

I don’t think that I said that it was not about love and I’m not looking for your help.

 

[PRmerger]

Could you show me in which verse He makes Peter a Shepher

It’s right next to the verse that says we have to show you in Scripture where we believe something is.

 

[robbie20]

I’d like to add papal infallibility wasn’t around for the first 1850 years of the Church… It was added in the 19th century…

 

[PRmerger]

I’d like to add papal infallibility wasn’t around for the first 1850 years of the Church… It was added in the 19th century…

What was formally declared or dogmatically defined at a certain period of time is not an indication that something “wasn’t around.”

Take this analogy:

It has been the “constant teaching” in our house that when the girls come home from school they are to do certain things: put their school supplies away, put their shoes away, wash their hands, take off their uniforms, eat their snack, finish their chores, practice their piano, etc etc etc.

Despite the fact that they have been doing this every school day for 3-13 years **every once in a while we need to have a “family meeting” to pronounce, declare and define exactly who should be doing which job and how it is to be done. **(Note: I try to ignore their incredulous looks that say, “What? We’re supposed to hang up our backpacks again this year?” or “What? You’ve never said that we had to take off our uniforms and hang them up!” )

At this council we recall what’s been done in the past, review the current norms and define again exactly what’s the expectation. **Sometimes the kids complain that we are “reinterpreting the rules”, claiming we’ve “never done it this way before” when in actuality we are just pronouncing, declaring and defining a standard norm of our family.
**

Thus, what was formally pronounced and declared at a family meeting is not an indication that we’ve just developed a new rule.