Strong arguments for papal infallibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter MilesVitae
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MilesVitae

Guest
I have lately been struggling with doubts about Catholicism. I have wondered about the possibility that the claims of Eastern Orthodoxy are true. What are the arguments and the evidence for papal infallibility (from reason, history, church fathers, or scripture)?
 
MilesVitae said:
I have lately been struggling with doubts about Catholicism. I have wondered about the possibility that the claims of Eastern Orthodoxy are true. What are the arguments and the evidence for papal infallibility (from reason, history, church fathers, or scripture)?
Click to expand...
Read about the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. When Peter made his decision, he made base on what God showed him in Acts 10. That is the teaching of Papal Infallibility (the Holy Spirit guides the Pope to make an infallible decision on faith and morals). Jesus promise His Church that He will send the Holy Spirit to teach and remind the of all truth (key word, all) (Jn 14: 16-17; 25-26; 16: 13). Before Jesus talked to the apostles, He gave Peter the authority to bind and lose in Mt 16: 16-19. Jesus also told Peter that the gates of hell will not prevail. If Peter has the authority to bind and lose and the gate of hell will not prevail against the Church, that means God must be guiding Peter and his successors to make the right decision on faith and morals.

1 Tim 3: 15 shows the infallibility of the Church. The Church upholds and defends the truth from false teachings like a pillar and foundation prevents a building from collapsing. If the Church on earth protects the truth, then the leader (the Pope) is the main one that is doing the protection.

Another key verse is Gal 1: 18, which says that Paul went to see Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days. the Greek word for “see” (it will say confer in New American Bible) in the verse is “Historeo,” which means to gain knowledge from. Paul stayed with Peter for 15 days so he can learn and see if what he is teaching is right. He could have done the same with James (or James and Peter), but Paul went to Peter and him alone for knowledge.

One key evidence from the Fathers is St Augustine Sermon 131: 10 which states:

“What then was said of the Jews, the same altogether do we see in these men now. They have a zeal of God: I hear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. What is, not according to knowledge? For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and wishing to establish their own, they have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. My Brethren, share with me in my sorrow. When ye find such as these, do not hide them; be there no such misdirected mercy in you; by all means, when you find such, hide them not. Convince the gainsayers, and those who resist, bring to us.** For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see (Rome); and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue; would that their error may sometime be brought to an issue too!** Therefore do we advise that they may take heed, we teach that they may be instructed, we pray that they may be changed. Let us turn to the Lord, etc.”
newadvent.org/fathers/160381.htm

You can also read from his letters against the Pelegius 2: 5
newadvent.org/fathers/15092.htm

There is a lot more to this topic (especially about the Pope supremacy). You can read more about it on newadvent.org.
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
 
MilesVitae said:
I have lately been struggling with doubts about Catholicism. I have wondered about the possibility that the claims of Eastern Orthodoxy are true. What are the arguments and the evidence for papal infallibility (from reason, history, church fathers, or scripture)?
Click to expand...
[17] And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

Was Saint Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, something he figured out ? Did Saint Peter study theology books written by Jesus and then come to this conclusion ? Negative. God the Father Himself revealed this Truth by special revelation to Saint Peter, and the Lord Jesus Christ affirmed it.

“…flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven”

That was an infallible statement bravely spoken by Saint Peter, and this confession was, is, and will always be the Christian confession, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Pax,
Tim
 
The posts above give you great background, so if I may can I see if we can get to it another way. Why would not there be papal infallibility?

God only wants the best for us and for us to join him in Heaven - isn’t that why he sent His Son to die for us?

Jesus established one Church to carry on His teachings and lead his flock to salvation (both the Western and Eastern Churches agree on this, they just disagree on which one is that one Church now;)).

That one true Church must never teach faith or morals incorrectly else our very salvation is at risk. So God must ensure that the sinful mortal men leading his Church can never teach error. How can God ensure this? By sending down the Holy Spirit to guide the teachings of the Pope and the Magisterium infallibly.

If there is no infallibility, what do we do when some Priests, Bishops or Patriarchs teach one thing and some another? They cannot both be right (take a look at the various opinions of our Protestant brothers and sisters to see where this leads).

For me, infallibility over the last 2,000 years is one of the most visible signs that the Catholic Church is the one Church that God wants us to be a part of.
 
The articles are great ways to study the Scripture which is more explicit. I came across a different angle that I think is also very sound the other day. Peter walked on water. But only as long as he had his faith. But what did Jesus promise Peter later in life? Jesus said, “I have prayed for you (singular to Peter in the original Greek) that your faith may not fail.” Walking on water is signal of the power that Peter would have. And exercising teaching infallibility is child’s play compared to that! We must trust the Spirit to thus operate through Peter whose gifts live on in his successors.
 
MilesVitae said:
I have lately been struggling with doubts about Catholicism. I have wondered about the possibility that the claims of Eastern Orthodoxy are true. What are the arguments and the evidence for papal infallibility (from reason, history, church fathers, or scripture)?
Click to expand...
Miles, Do you think NO ONE, past present or future, can speak without making a mistake on matters of faith and morals? IOW there are NO absolutes you can depend on regarding faith or morals that are free of error?

Some have already given you scripture, ECF’s history…

1st it’s good to define what the subject is by how the Church defines it not anyone else

A secular dictionary
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 Church definition of papal infallibility from Vat I. It’s very specific, NOT general. As an aside, most people who oppose this, oppose it on what they THINK it is rather than what it really is,

[SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870) - First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ


  1. *
    • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
    • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
    • that is, when,
      1. **in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **
      2. **in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **
      3. **he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, **
      4. he possesses,
      5. by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
      6. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
      7. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
      http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
 
MilesVitae said:
I have lately been struggling with doubts about Catholicism. I have wondered about the possibility that the claims of Eastern Orthodoxy are true. What are the arguments and the evidence for papal infallibility (from reason, history, church fathers, or scripture)?
Click to expand...
Miles,

What is your main objection to papal infallibility
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top