The infallable pope

[Irene72]

Where in the bible does it mention the “election” of a pope and his “infalablity”? (not great spelling but you know what I mean)

 

[MrStain]

Where in the bible does it mention the “election” of a pope and his “infalablity”? (not great spelling but you know what I mean)

Just for clarification. Are you looking for those specific words, election and infallibility, or are you looking more for biblical evidence justifying the Catholic position on the succession of Bishops and indefectibility?

 

[Irene72]

Just for clarification. Are you looking for those specific words, election and infallibility, or are you looking more for biblical evidence justifying the Catholic position on the succession of Bishops and indefectibility?

I am sure those words are not in their so what ever you think may pertain to it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Would you mind providing us the relevant Bible passage which tells us that all that Jesus Christ did and said is in the Bible?

Actually, that is a ‘trick question’. You see, quite specifically in the Bible it says that **not all **that Jesus did or said has been ‘written’ into Scripture. Scripture itself was not available as a ‘Bible’ (as we know it) for nearly 400 years after Christ’s birth. What was available, as St. Paul tells us, was the ‘oral tradition’ (“Hold fast to the teachings you have received from us, both by word of mouth and in letters” --letters, mind you, not ‘bible’ or "scripture’ per se.)

In fact, in the Bible you will not find mention of the word "bible’. Or "Trinity’. You will not find specific instructions for Christians to worship on Sunday and that this is to be carried out ‘perpetually’. You will not find in the Bible the specific directions for liturgy. You won’t even find the Nicene Creed which many Protestant denominations use, or adapt, to their own ‘statement’ or creed. You won’t find directions for altar calls, speaking from the podium, what kind of music to play in service. You won’t find animadversions upon playing cards, dancing, or drinking. (For ‘casting lots’ was a game not just played by Roman soldiers. David danced before the Lord. And Jesus not only offered the chalice cup of the Passover–by definition, one of wine–but He himself mentioned that “the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you called Him a glutton and a drunkard.”)

The Bible–Scripture–is a good and useful tool–but it is not, and never was, the ‘only authority’. A book --a ‘thing’ if you will, even a precious thing–cannot have authority. People have authority. The “word of God” in the Bible is not self-interpreting. . .or you wouldn’t find so many of your fellow Protestants (or whatever, since you are ‘unsure’ of your religion?) arguing over the meaning of countless phrases.

Christ gave St. Peter the authority (the keys) and St. Peter and the apostles–and those who were chosen to succeed them–the power to bind and loose, and the Great Commission to go forth to ‘Baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ --not to ‘claim that unless is ‘in the bible’ it doesn’t mean squat.’

The word pope means ‘papa’. And before you start with the "call no man Father’ may I remind you that Christ, in His parable about Lazarus and the rich man, had the rich man address Abraham as "Father Abraham’. So, is Jesus then contradicting himself? St. Paul also refers to himself as a "father’, not only to Timothy but to his readers. Is St. Paul contradicting Christ?

And infallibility (not to be confused with impeccability) is indeed directly related to the Scripture of both "binding and loosing’ and the Old Testament passages regarding the stewards of the king, acting with the authority of the King. If the “gates of hell” are not to prevail against Christ and His Church, then there must be a ‘protection’ of that Church. . .otherwise, since all are ‘men’, there could not be a guarantee that error could not creep in–unless The Holy Spirit (whom Christ promised to ‘guide us to all Truth’) prevented it. One way in which the Spirit did guide us to all Truth was to guide us to the Truth about infallibility (which you really should read about so that you understand what it is, and what it is NOT. I recommend checking out New Advent (the Catholic Encyclopedia).

 

[Peter_J]

Where in the bible does it mention the “election” of a pope and his “infalablity”? (not great spelling but you know what I mean)

Concerning infallibility, I know that a lot of people are going to tell you (at least if spend time on the internet) that the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is infallible whenever he teaches anything about faith and morals.

This is not the Catholic teaching.

The Catholic Church actually only teaches that the Pope is infallible when he makes an ex cathedra statement. (Roughly speaking, that’s whenever he defines a dogma.)

I know that doesn’t answer your question, but I think it’s important to establish that at the beginning of the discussion.

 

[MrStain]

Tentum Ergo, It looks like you covered all the bases with that response. I hope you don’t mind if I add some Scripture verses you referenced in your post so Irene72 can see how your reasoning is in fact very biblically based.

Would you mind providing us the relevant Bible passage which tells us that all that Jesus Christ did and said is in the Bible?

Actually, that is a ‘trick question’. You see, quite specifically in the Bible it says that **not all **that Jesus did or said has been ‘written’ into Scripture.

Jn 21:25

Scripture itself was not available as a ‘Bible’ (as we know it) for nearly 400 years after Christ’s birth. What was available, as St. Paul tells us, was the ‘oral tradition’ (“Hold fast to the teachings you have received from us, both by word of mouth and in letters” --letters, mind you, not ‘bible’ or "scripture’ per se.)

1 Cor 11:2
1 Cor 15:1-2
2 Thess 2:15
2 Thess 3:6
2 Tim 1:13
2 Tim 2:2

In fact, in the Bible you will not find mention of the word "bible’. Or "Trinity’. You will not find specific instructions for Christians to worship on Sunday and that this is to be carried out ‘perpetually’. You will not find in the Bible the specific directions for liturgy. You won’t even find the Nicene Creed which many Protestant denominations use, or adapt, to their own ‘statement’ or creed. You won’t find directions for altar calls, speaking from the podium, what kind of music to play in service. You won’t find animadversions upon playing cards, dancing, or drinking. (For ‘casting lots’ was a game not just played by Roman soldiers. David danced before the Lord. And Jesus not only offered the chalice cup of the Passover–by definition, one of wine–but He himself mentioned that “the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you called Him a glutton and a drunkard.”)

Mt 11:19

The Bible–Scripture–is a good and useful tool–but it is not, and never was, the ‘only authority’. A book --a ‘thing’ if you will, even a precious thing–cannot have authority. People have authority. The “word of God” in the Bible is not self-interpreting. . .or you wouldn’t find so many of your fellow Protestants (or whatever, since you are ‘unsure’ of your religion?) arguing over the meaning of countless phrases.

Christ gave St. Peter the authority (the keys) and St. Peter and the apostles–and those who were chosen to succeed them–the power to bind and loose,

Mt 16:19
Jn 20:23

and the Great Commission to go forth to ‘Baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ --not to ‘claim that unless is ‘in the bible’ it doesn’t mean squat.’

Mt 28:19

The word pope means ‘papa’. And before you start with the "call no man Father’ may I remind you that Christ, in His parable about Lazarus and the rich man, had the rich man address Abraham as "Father Abraham’. So, is Jesus then contradicting himself?

Lk 16:24
Lk 14:26

St. Paul also refers to himself as a "father’, not only to Timothy but to his readers. Is St. Paul contradicting Christ?

Rom 4:16-17
1 Cor 4:14-15
1 Tim 1:2
Heb 12:7-9
1 Thess 2:11
Philem 1:10
1 Jn 2:13-14
Acts 22:1
Not to mention that his close follower Luke records Stephen using the term “fathers”
Acts 7:2

And infallibility (not to be confused with impeccability) is indeed directly related to the Scripture of both "binding and loosing’ and the Old Testament passages regarding the stewards of the king, acting with the authority of the King.

Isa 22:20-22

If the “gates of hell” are not to prevail against Christ and His Church, then there must be a ‘protection’ of that Church

Mt 16:18-19

. . .otherwise, since all are ‘men’, there could not be a guarantee that error could not creep in–unless The Holy Spirit (whom Christ promised to ‘guide us to all Truth’) prevented it.

Jn 16:13
Jn 14:26
1 Tim 3:15

One way in which the Spirit did guide us to all Truth was to guide us to the Truth about infallibility (which you really should read about so that you understand what it is, and what it is NOT. I recommend checking out New Advent (the Catholic Encyclopedia).

Good advice and great summary.

 

[rinnie]

If you read in the bible before Jesus leaves he says I will give you the words. He chose Peter to be the leader, and he told him what my Father has given me i now give to you. So when Jesus said I will give you the words he meant scripture, and we all know Jesus doesnt lie, and if he gives him the words, they are the truth.

 

[churchcamefirst]

When Jesus spoke to his Apostle’s, giving Peter authority to rule his church here on earth, he told him ** “What you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven, what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”. **This starts the papacy of St. Peter. Jesus then told the rest of his Apostle’s when he breathed the holy Spirit onto them that **“Whatever sins you forgive are forgiven them, whatever sins you retain are retained”.**This starts the bishops and the priests.

Pretty clear to me.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Where in the bible does it mention the “election” of a pope and his “infalablity”? (not great spelling but you know what I mean)

Why do you think the subset of the deposit of faith that is the bible is the authority who (which) decides the correctness of the election of a Pope and his infallibility?

 

[SIA]

Would you mind providing us the relevant Bible passage which tells us that all that Jesus Christ did and said is in the Bible?

Actually, that is a ‘trick question’. You see, quite specifically in the Bible it says that **not all **that Jesus did or said has been ‘written’ into Scripture. Scripture itself was not available as a ‘Bible’ (as we know it) for nearly 400 years after Christ’s birth. What was available, as St. Paul tells us, was the ‘oral tradition’ (“Hold fast to the teachings you have received from us, both by word of mouth and in letters” --letters, mind you, not ‘bible’ or "scripture’ per se.)

In fact, in the Bible you will not find mention of the word "bible’. Or "Trinity’. You will not find specific instructions for Christians to worship on Sunday and that this is to be carried out ‘perpetually’. You will not find in the Bible the specific directions for liturgy. You won’t even find the Nicene Creed which many Protestant denominations use, or adapt, to their own ‘statement’ or creed. You won’t find directions for altar calls, speaking from the podium, what kind of music to play in service. You won’t find animadversions upon playing cards, dancing, or drinking. (For ‘casting lots’ was a game not just played by Roman soldiers. David danced before the Lord. And Jesus not only offered the chalice cup of the Passover–by definition, one of wine–but He himself mentioned that “the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you called Him a glutton and a drunkard.”)

The Bible–Scripture–is a good and useful tool–but it is not, and never was, the ‘only authority’. A book --a ‘thing’ if you will, even a precious thing–cannot have authority. People have authority. The “word of God” in the Bible is not self-interpreting. . .or you wouldn’t find so many of your fellow Protestants (or whatever, since you are ‘unsure’ of your religion?) arguing over the meaning of countless phrases.

Christ gave St. Peter the authority (the keys) and St. Peter and the apostles–and those who were chosen to succeed them–the power to bind and loose, and the Great Commission to go forth to ‘Baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ --not to ‘claim that unless is ‘in the bible’ it doesn’t mean squat.’

The word pope means ‘papa’. And before you start with the "call no man Father’ may I remind you that Christ, in His parable about Lazarus and the rich man, had the rich man address Abraham as "Father Abraham’. So, is Jesus then contradicting himself? St. Paul also refers to himself as a "father’, not only to Timothy but to his readers. Is St. Paul contradicting Christ?

And infallibility (not to be confused with impeccability) is indeed directly related to the Scripture of both "binding and loosing’ and the Old Testament passages regarding the stewards of the king, acting with the authority of the King. If the “gates of hell” are not to prevail against Christ and His Church, then there must be a ‘protection’ of that Church. . .otherwise, since all are ‘men’, there could not be a guarantee that error could not creep in–unless The Holy Spirit (whom Christ promised to ‘guide us to all Truth’) prevented it. One way in which the Spirit did guide us to all Truth was to guide us to the Truth about infallibility (which you really should read about so that you understand what it is, and what it is NOT. I recommend checking out New Advent (the Catholic Encyclopedia).

Just more semantics.

 

[SIA]

Concerning infallibility, I know that a lot of people are going to tell you (at least if spend time on the internet) that the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is infallible whenever he teaches anything about faith and morals.

This is not the Catholic teaching.

The Catholic Church actually only teaches that the Pope is infallible when he makes an ex cathedra statement. (Roughly speaking, that’s whenever he defines a dogma.)

I know that doesn’t answer your question, but I think it’s important to establish that at the beginning of the discussion.

What makes you believe that people don’t already know this?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Mr.Stain: Thank you.

SIA, guess you missed Mr. Stain’s excellent post which gave all the actual Scriptural references to support the post of mine which you called ‘semantics’. I trust you’re not calling Scripture ‘just more semantics’. . .

Especially when (and it’s going to come sooner than you think) our separated brethren return to Catholicism. Far better that you concentrate on the many things that you ‘agree with’ in the Catholic faith than paint yourself into a corner finding the few that you have rejected and attempting to make them so important that you’d cut off your nose to spite your face. . .

 

[SIA]

Mr.Stain: Thank you.

SIA, guess you missed Mr. Stain’s excellent post which gave all the actual Scriptural references to support the post of mine which you called ‘semantics’. I trust you’re not calling Scripture ‘just more semantics’. . .

Especially when (and it’s going to come sooner than you think) our separated brethren return to Catholicism. Far better that you concentrate on the many things that you ‘agree with’ in the Catholic faith than paint yourself into a corner finding the few that you have rejected and attempting to make them so important that you’d cut off your nose to spite your face. . .

Ah, there you are. You didn’t truly expect me to just accept one person applying Scripture verses (in his own opinion) to another’s statements did you?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No, though I did a quick check through and they appear quite correct. I’m the first to admit that while I have read through the Bible several times (since my youth, yes, even back in the 1960s we grade school kids were encouraged to read the Bible at least in Philly!) I never learned ‘chapter and verse’ but rather more as a ‘whole’ and in reference back to other ‘chapters and verses’ as a whole, though I do relish the on-line Bibles so that I can make a ‘quick check’. I just moved and while I took my LOTH (the 1 volume set) with me, my Bible–being one of the Largish, heavy, “Family” ilk, is still in transit, via ‘media mail’, otherwise I probably would have added at least half a dozen of the quotes myself. I do find it easier if I know I’m going to use a LOT of Biblical references to use the actual Bible rather than go on line.

I’ll tell you what, though, it is going to be wonderful when Christians do unite. No more arguing, a united Christendom, and we’ll be bringing out the best in each other as Christians instead of the worst. I know that sometimes Catholics have ‘ragged’ on Episcopalians and Lutherans (and with some unfairness too at times or ‘individually’), probably because doctrinally we are so ‘close’ that it almost seems incredible to share so much and yet to disagree so radically on a few points. When that frustrates us (on either side) we can slide into bringing out the worst in each other. . .but when that heartens us instead, it brings out the best.

God bless!

 

[Peter_J]

What makes you believe that people don’t already know this?

I admit that, on the surface, it is pretty far-fetched to think that people believe that “the Pope is infallible whenever he teaches anything about faith and morals”; and yet, time and time again, I have heard or read people (Catholics and non-Catholics alike) claim that that is what the Catholic Church teaches. (Then of course they often follow it with a little commentary about how the Pope could make a mistake if he’s talking about something apart from faith and morals, like the weather.)

 

[swariffin]

What makes you believe that people don’t already know this?

Because we see that you miss all the point that we answered. Your name not even mentioned in the bible, and yet you are still exist. No Protestant, Episcopalian, whatever denomination mentioned in the bible, and yet there are exist. You cannot explain this fact, but rather avoiding the issue. The same thing also about Trinity which was not mentioned in the bible, and yet all (except Mormon and JW) Christians accept it. You can not take the development of faith but rather make a self conclusion. Come on, that kind of thinking and logic can come only from the follower of Mr. M.

 

[elts1956]

What makes you believe that people don’t already know this?

BAIT BAIT BAIT. When I want entertainment, I just go to your posts.

 

[abucs]

Irene,

we view the church as existing well before the New Testament was canonised and younger even than the time of the individual writings.

If you are looking at scriptural evidence though, i’d put forward the idea that the scriptures plainly make Peter the leader.

I’d reference Jesus’ words in Matthew 16 with Isaiah 22:22 and the continuation of the Jewish High Priesthood with Peter.
The book to the Hebrews deals with the ‘New Judaism’ of Christianity. This was the first church. They were closest to the historical Jesus on earth.

I’d reference the loosing and binding as pointing the infallibility on morals.

I’d point to the widespread description in the scriptures and early writings of ‘laying on hands’ to denote the handing on of authority after the fall of the Jewish temple system (see Hebrews).

I’d point to John’s description of Jesus sprecifically telling Peter three times to care, guide and shepard his sheep.

Jesus often spoke of himself as the shepard, and the usage of the same word (sheparding) in John’s gospel is significant. The Jewish idea since Moses was that the high priest was the temporary steward acting on behalf of God on earth.

For me personally, even before i start looking at the bible it just makes sense to have a church which of course has a head. This was the nature of the Jewish understanding of Church since Moses and Jesus spoke on earth about ‘obeying those on the seat of Moses’, even if they act badly. He never spoke of the destruction of the priesthood or its abolition. He did speak about tearing down the temple and building it again.

Without a heirachy of Church you never would have had agreement on what was a canonised list of New testamant writings. It would have been a mess. It would make Jesus actions / personality / reason for coming and divinity claims arbitrary and up for grabs depending on who has the most charisma at any one particular time.

For me the continuing miracles in the church is the further clarification down the centuries for that presence.

Otherwise it just looks an arbitrary mess and, for me personally, detracts from the validity claims of Christianity.

But that’s me.

If we put our faith in the bible alone, we are ignoring that there needed a church to write and authorise and explain the bible.
We are also dismissing the Jewish idea of high Priest stewardship.
We are also ignoring the very early church who didn’t have a bible and the many generations of Christians in later generations down the centuries who did not have access to the written word, because of many factors including the heavy dependency on agricultural labour and the heavy costs of hand writing copies on animal hides.

It’s only since the cheap invention of paper (China) and the printing press (Germany) and the Industrial revolution (Great Britain) and the mass innoculation against disease (France) that allows today the access to affordable, relatively cheap education supplied by healthy, stable, concentrated urban populations that produce the mass printing of bibles.

But that is a latter development in my opinion and is totally out of step with the history of Christianity. It is a great improvement and a good thing, but i think building a Christinity with the bible as the total base i think cuts itself off from historical Christianity which to me, cuts at the very heart of the validity claims of Christianity and is not a good thing if as part of that, the Christian history is thrown overboard.

Christian history, as i see it, is a connection to the time of Jesus.
Cutting out part of that history makes for a weaker Christianity, not stronger IMHO.

A reliance on the bible alone MAY work for salvation (which is the most important thing - agreed) but does not make sense for a complete historical view of the true Jewish-Christianity (or Christianity) itself from 33 A.D IMHO.

God bless.

 

[cathopologist]

Where in the bible does it mention the “election” of a pope and his “infalablity”? (not great spelling but you know what I mean)

Is the Caliphate a Qur’anic teaching as well?

 

[swariffin]

I really wonder how people get comfortable following a spiritual leader who is FALLIBLE even in a specific term such as moral and faith. What happens if such leader ever make mistakes? Although Mr. M follower never mentioned it, their behavior clearly confirm such INFALLIBILITY.