The Church is infallible?

[aprotestant1983]

I was reading an article on this page about proving inspiration in which the author stated that the Church is infallible. How does a group composed of fallible individuals produce infallible results?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Easy.

The Church is capable of teaching infallibly on faith and morals.

Faith and morals are beyond scientific discover and process. They are matters of faith, not sight. Therefore, the scientific process cannot refine, reinforce, or refute any claims made in these area.

In order for us to have a concept of “absolute” in faith and morals, there has to be a standard.

Catholics have decided that the Church holds the standards in these areas.

Bada boom bada bing, since we agree the Church is the standard, she is therefore infallible.

Alan

 

[RobedWithLight]

Jesus likewise promised that He will be with His Church until the consummation of the world(Matt. 28:20). Such promise assures the Church divine guidance, which prevents the Church as a whole from falling into error, though individual churchmen can err and stumble like any human being.

Gerry

 

[RSiscoe]

aprotestant1983:

I was reading an article on this page about proving inspiration in which the author stated that the Church is infallible. How does a group composed of fallible individuals produce infallible results?

Very good question. How can a fallible person produce infallible results. It seems like a contradiction doesn’t it. Actually no person within the Church is infallible, except for its head - Jesus.

However, Jesus does act through his visible representative - the Pope - when he defines moral or doctrinal matters. When we say the Church is infallible, what we mean is that Jesus, the head of the Church, acts through the Church in defining doctrines. The doctrines are infallible because God, who is all truth, has revealed them (through the Church).

Is there any proof of God speaking infallibly through men? Yes. Protestants agree that the Bible was written by fallible men, yet acknowledge that the Bible is infallible. This is because God acted through these men in spite of their fallibility. Thus, we have an infallible book that was produced by fallible men.

So, in conclusion, the way fallible men can produce infallible results is by God acting through them in spite of their fallibility. Just as God used fallible men to produce the infallible scriptures, so He still uses fallible men (Popes) to define doctrinal matters.

If you think about it, without an authority to settle doctrinal disputes, there would be no true unity within the Church. Everyone would just believe what they wanted, which is always clouded by personal experience and bias. The unity of faith (belief) is too important for that. Jesus said to the apostles (fallible men) “he who hears you, hears me”; and promised to be with them ( via their successors) “to the consumation of the world”.

The successors of the apostles are the Bishops of the Catholic Church. If you type “apostolic succession Catholic apologetics” into a search engine, you will be able to read about this. It is very interesting. The Apostles ordained men to succeed them; these men ordained others, and so on. This has continued to our day in an unbroken succession. Any Bishop of the Catholic Church today can be traced back, link by link, to one of the apostles. When I was a Protestant, I found that very interesting and read all about it. This is clearly shown in the Bible and in the writings of the Church fathers.

If you have never look into that, you may find it very interesting.

God Bless,

 

[RSiscoe]

111

 

[quixotic]

I agree with you… think scott hahn said something like that too… the church has had is probelms… ok… might still be having them… but they are not catholic problems… they are human problems… it happends not onlynin the catholic church

 

[_Joshua]

RobedWithLight:

Jesus likewise promised that He will be with His Church until the consummation of the world(Matt. 28:20). Such promise assures the Church divine guidance, which prevents the Church as a whole from falling into error, though individual churchmen can err and stumble like any human being.

Gerry

Correct, and since it is the Holy Spirit that guides the Church, then we can say that the Holy Spirit is infallible.

 

[aprotestant1983]

okay, so the holy spirit is infallible, and this is similar to the belief in an infallible bible, but the difference I’m noticing is that it seems more likely that the Holy Spirit guided some writing of a fallible being to produce infallible results as opposed to the Holy Spirit taking so much control as to say that the Catholic Church managed to never mess up over the past 2000 years. Hmm, this isn’t coming out quite clearly… Paul, for example, acknowledged that he was a sinner and incapable of doing the good he wanted to do, so we are able to make the distinction that we can take what he wrote and apply it directly and purely to our lives, but we don’t assume that he was perfect in all his choices, why can we make that distinction with the Catholic Church, which, as a sidenote, has had to make far more, quantifiably, and far more complicated decisions (in the sense of policy decisions and scope of these decisions) than Paul? Hope this makes sense.

 

[RSiscoe]

aprotestant1983:

okay, so the holy spirit is infallible, and this is similar to the belief in an infallible bible, but the difference I’m noticing is that it seems more likely that the Holy Spirit guided some writing of a fallible being to produce infallible results as opposed to the Holy Spirit taking so much control as to say that the Catholic Church managed to never mess up over the past 2000 years. Hmm, this isn’t coming out quite clearly… Paul, for example, acknowledged that he was a sinner and incapable of doing the good he wanted to do, so we are able to make the distinction that we can take what he wrote and apply it directly and purely to our lives, but we don’t assume that he was perfect in all his choices, why can we make that distinction with the Catholic Church, which, as a sidenote, has had to make far more, quantifiably, and far more complicated decisions (in the sense of policy decisions and scope of these decisions) than Paul? Hope this makes sense.

It makes sense. Actually when we say the Church is infallible, what is meant is that her doctrines (which have been revealed by God through her) are infallible. It does not mean that Church leaders, or even Popes, will be perfect and not make mistakes. It just means that the doctrines she teaches are infallibly true, because, when the Church defines a doctrine the Holy Ghost protects her from error. That is what infallibility means: it referrs to the dogmas of the faith; not the the how the Church is governed by this or that Pope.

There is another teaching called “indefectability”, which means that the Church will last to the “consumation of the world”. That is different from infallibility. Niether teachings means that everything will run smoothly in the Church. Just like any organization there are good times and bad. What we believe is that, no matter how bad things look for the Church, it will never completely be destroyed (indefectable), and every doctrine that is defined by the Church will be true (infallibility).

 

[FCEGM]

aprotestant1983:

… Paul, for example, acknowledged that he was a sinner and incapable of doing the good he wanted to do, so we are able to make the distinction that we can take what he wrote and apply it directly and purely to our lives, but we don’t assume that he was perfect in all his choices, why can we make that distinction with the Catholic Church, which, as a sidenote, has had to make far more, quantifiably, and far more complicated decisions (in the sense of policy decisions and scope of these decisions) than Paul? Hope this makes sense.

This article from the Catholic Answers’ site should help you better understand the distinction between infallibility and impeccability:

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

 

[Exporter]

RSiscoe wrote: “It makes sense. Actually when we say the Church is infallible, what is meant is that her doctrines (which have been revealed by God through her) are infallible. It does not mean that Church leaders, or even Popes, will be perfect and not make mistakes. It just means that the doctrines she teaches are infallibly true, because, when the Church defines a doctrine the Holy Ghost protects her from error. That is what infallibility means: it referrs to the dogmas of the faith; not the the how the Church is governed by this or that Pope.”

This is excellent RSiscoe.
Magisterium

The living, teaching office of the Church, whose task it is to give an authentic interpretation of the word of God, whether in its written form (Sacred Scripture) or in the form of Tradition. The Magisterium ensures the Church’s fidelity to the teaching of the Apostles in matters of faith and morals.

CCC 85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.”

CCC 86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”

CCC 890 “The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism has several forms.”

CCC 891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith – he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals … The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s sucessor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine for belief as being divinely revealed, and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions must be adhered to with the obedience of faith. This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

 

[TNT]

aprotestant1983:

I was reading an article on this page about proving inspiration in which the author stated that the Church is infallible. How does a group composed of fallible individuals produce infallible results?

Well, one day I discovered that a Number * itself = the same number squared.
I also discovered that Force=mass*acceleration
Finally, I discovered that these were infallible truths taught by…fallible men. Hard to believe, isn’t it?
Prots read half the bible, believe a third, and practice a fourth.
Therefore “I am WITH YOU always even to the end…” means, “you will apostatize and never know for sure and as a result, will teach many false doctrines…especially about that ‘Woman’ .you saw at Cana.”

 

[Exporter]

CCC 891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith – he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals … The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s sucessor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council.

 

[martino]

aprotestant1983:

I was reading an article on this page about proving inspiration in which the author stated that the Church is infallible. How does a group composed of fallible individuals produce infallible results?

Do you believe that the Bible is infallible? If you do I would ask you the same question; How does a group composed of fallible individuals produce infallible results?

The answer to both is the Holy Spirit is more than capable of producing infallible results through fallible individuals.

 

[aprotestant1983]

1. I’m sure this is going to enter another issue, but when did Christ give the charism of infallibility to the Church? I know that Peter is the rock that the church would be built upon and he is given a great deal of authority, but assuming it for the rest of the Church’s actions doesn’t yet make sense to me.
2. Facts of physics are not the same as doctrine, as someone above pointed out, the scientific method isn’t really the tool to be using in figuring out correct doctrine, so learning infallible physics from fallible people isn’t like having infallible doctrine from fallible people.
3. I’m not doubting the Holy Spirit’s ability, I do, however, from my readings of the bible, doubt such unprecedented assitance over such a long period of time, it seems like too much of a blank check, kind of like telling people that as long as they are serious, respectful, and prayerful that they will always do what’s right. I have a hard time with that, perhaps it gives people too much credit.
4. And to TNT, come on, more than a few low blows up there.

 

[preyoflove]

aprotestant1983:

1. I’m sure this is going to enter another issue, but when did Christ give the charism of infallibility to the Church? I know that Peter is the rock that the church would be built upon and he is given a great deal of authority, but assuming it for the rest of the Church’s actions doesn’t yet make sense to me.

Our Lord Jesus Christ gave the charism of infallibility when He gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven in Mt 16:19: “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”. This binding and loosing is a teaching authority. That heaven agrees on what St. Peter binds and looses makes that teaching authority therefore an infallible one.

aprotestant1983:

1. Facts of physics are not the same as doctrine, as someone above pointed out, the scientific method isn’t really the tool to be using in figuring out correct doctrine, so learning infallible physics from fallible people isn’t like having infallible doctrine from fallible people.

Yes, that is true. But the similarity drawn from the comparison is this: As facts of Physics and the sciences are arrived at by Human Reason, so also are truths of Faith and Morals are arrived at by Faith and Human Reason. How do we know we the facts we have now are correct and true? We have to believe that our minds were not playing tricks with us when we use these to arrive at the facts. How do we know that the Pope and the bishops in union with him are teaching us infallible doctrines in the matters of faith and morals? We have to believe that the Holy Spirit is preserving them from teaching us fallible doctrines. How can we believe in the preserving work of the Holy Spirit? That is the called Faith–which is a grace, a gift that must be asked from God.

aprotestant1983:

1. I’m not doubting the Holy Spirit’s ability, I do, however, from my readings of the bible, doubt such unprecedented assitance over such a long period of time, it seems like too much of a blank check, kind of like telling people that as long as they are serious, respectful, and prayerful that they will always do what’s right. I have a hard time with that, perhaps it gives people too much credit.

Whatever it takes, bro. God will do whatever it takes. If Holy Mother Church on Earth is meant to last until the end of time–and in fact for all eternity, then the Holy Spirit will guarantee that She will last that long or else no one would take our Lord seriously in Mt 16:18 “…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” I mean, c’mon, Mt 28:20:"…And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.", how can you doubt that?

 

[Jeremy]

I do, however, from my readings of the bible, doubt such unprecedented assitance over such a long period of time, it seems like too much of a blank check, kind of like telling people that as long as they are serious, respectful, and prayerful that they will always do what’s right. I have a hard time with that, perhaps it gives people too much credit.

Protestants generally believe that as long as people are serious, respectful and prayerful that they will always do what’s right with regards to their faith, OR they believe that they may do wrong but the stuff they do wrong is unimportant and God will forgive them anyway.

I’m currently non-Catholic but I find myself drifting steadily to Catholicism because neither of the above options seems reasonable to me.

The first option essentially moves the notion of infallibility in doctrine from the Church to each individual believer. As incredible as it may be that the Church can teach infallibly, how much more incredible is it to believe that each individual believer, using nothing but prayer and the selection of writings in the NT, can reach perfect interpretations of the faith? In particular, how can one reconcile the completely different beliefs different Protestants have? How can they all be correct?

I have a hard time believing the second option, either. Consider the belief of many born-again Baptist types as an example. These folks believe that when you say the sinner’s prayer with a contrite heart, you are saved from there on out no matter what. This seems very risky. If you’re wrong, if something else is required after saying the prayer, then you could die in sin and spend eternity regretting your mistake. Not worrying about whether this is true or not, this seems like such an important matter that Jesus, if he really cared about his followers, should have provided some way for folks to know if this belief is the right one or not. But it seems pretty obvious that Scripture alone doesn’t fit the bill – arguments in favor of this belief are forced to provide very difficult explanations for verses that contradict this belief. So it stands to reason that Jesus must have provided something else to clarify this matter. The Church fills this role.

So the point is, if infallibility of the Church is hard to swallow, the infallibility of the believer is even more so.

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Our faith DEMANDS that we are tuaght infalliably in relation to the bible , if we are not then who can know what the bible really teaches or if indeed it is really the writings of the Apostles, or the words of Christ or in fact if Christianity is just another philosophy, if God has not ensured infalliable teachinginterpretation then WHAT CAN WE KNOW OF TRUTH.

In Christ

Tim Hayes

 

[aprotestant1983]

I don’t doubt that Christ will be with us until the consummation of the world, I agree on that point, but I think that it would be just as plausible that Christ is with us even without an infallible Church. To me it is something like how it radically changed the people’s beliefs to find that Abrahams descendents were more and maybe less than those directly related by blood but instead by the spirit.

And don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe in the infalliblility of the individual either. And I have no delusions about being personally flawless either (although I try to be prayerful, serious and respectful in my decisions), but I believe it is acceptable in God’s sight to strive as I can but always depend on His grace because my actions won’t be sufficient. And further, the reason to try and live perfectly comes in two different parts for me, first when Jesus told us that we are to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect, and secondly, because he said that whoever annuls the least of his commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be the least in the kingdom of heaven, but note that those who aren’t doing everything right are still counted as those in the kingdom of heaven, that’s why I’m not super concerned with the disagreements of the denominations, although I would like some more unity. And one last thing, I think the Lord’s prayer said with a contrite heart is acceptable because that implies the lifetime of devotion thereafter, it should never be thought that the mere act would merit salvation.
question: what are the very difficult verses that contradict the belief in Scripture alone?

 

[aprotestant1983]

oh, and I forgot one other thing, yes, I believe in the necessity of the infallibility in relation to the bible, my troubles come when we start talking infallibility beyond the bible.