You have to stop saying “YOUR view,” because it isn’t MY view…It’s what Jesus said. Look at what He said. Forget about me. Jesus promised infallibility to the apostles and never said ANYTHING about it being in communion with Peter.I think CM’s point is that your odd views make a mockery of Christ’s command to them teach all truth, since there must be but one truth for all twelve, and without Peter’s guiding hand they could easily come up with half a dozen contradictory ‘infallible’ truths. (
Note that those two or three at Jerusalem who thought Gentiles should be circumcised did not, and did not even dare to attempt to declare an infallible dogma without him, although on your view they would have been well within their rights to do so.
I never said Jesus didn’t single out Peter. Never. What I am saying though is that Jesus promised inallibility to them all. And the passage makes perfect sense…Peter is expected to lead the apostles BUT he is not to just RULE over them. Look at everything Peter does in the New Testament…He never just rules over the apostles as you suggest. He holds councils, he consults the others, he listens. You make it sound like Peter walked into a room and whatever he said is what everyone else believed, and that is not true.Have you though about this… because I don’t have a good explaination for it. Why in Matthew 16:18 Jesus gives the keys to Peter and the abilty to loose and bind. I understand later he goes and give ithe loose and binding to all the apostles and is why you thing that all the Apostles are equal but why would Jesus single him out first to give him this ability and then go the rest of the group to give them this ability. This passage makes no sense then. Why go through this whole rigamarole thing with Peter only then to just basically give everything else to the apostles as well. The passage makes no sense then and would just seem to be a pointless excersize by Jesus. What are your thoughts?
Even if everything you say in this post is true about interpreting Mathew…you are still wrong. Why? Because if Jesus only gave infallibility to the other apostles as a group, my point still stands, because many (if not all) of the other apostolic seats have left the communion with the Catholic Church, and if those seats are necessary to have infallibility, then the Church cannot make claims of infallibility without them. Your interpretation still produces the same result. It just doesn’t make sense. You say Peter was the only one promised infallibility, but the Church says the others were as well, so you are disareeing with the Pope. The apostles were given infallibility, as the Church agrees, but the difference is about whether this infallibility is dependent on being in communion with Peter or not. And my point is, where do you see in Mathew that the infallibility promise to the other apostles only works if they are in communion with Peter? You don’t see it anywhere because it isn’t there.Sorry Jinc to have so many post in a row. However, I do have one more question.
In the senerio you laid out you said you believe the apostles were infallible but gave no special chrism to the Pope because Jesus goes on to tell the rest of the apostles what he told Peter thus conferring individual Apostolic infallibility.
Have you ever thought about the passages this way… Jesus first gives the promise of infallibility to Peter alone and then gives it to the rest of the apostles as a group. Did you ever ask yourself why he does this, what is its significance and what it could mean? Does this kind of remind you of a current church set up?
Could it be that the significance is that the Pope (ie the successor of Peter) has the individual charism of infallibilty as Jesus orginally tells Peter alone seperately from the rest of the apostles and then goes to the GROUP of Apostles and gives them that chrism of infallibilty. Why one seperately and then later to a group?
It is interesting how this is exactly how the church is set up today. It is a group teaching with the consent of the pope that the Bishops can excersize infallibilty.
Just food for thought.
That is exactly what Jesus says to the other apostles in Mathew 18! And those apostolic seats now belong to churches not in communion with Rome!If the chruch tells you, It is Jesus telling you! St. Peter pray for us.
I am not sure why you think it is more practical for one person to make every important decision rather than all the bishops together? If you are going to just talk about what makes sense, your system makes no sense. If it did, why don’t we just apply it to our government and go back to having monarchs? Why not have Emperor Obama instead of a democratically elected president? Your argument that one person in charge makes more sense than many people working together is a failed concept of governance in all areas of life.I think you logic is faulty. Infallibilty is not transmitted to the Eastern Orthodox churches as well as the Catholic church but is transmitted to THE CHURCH. So because the have a disagreement doesn’t mean that infallbility doesn’t exist it simply means that one is not THE CHURCH as one or the other excommunicated each other. Of course you have to decide for yourself which one is THE CHURCH. Which is also coincidently why I think you have to have a tie breaker (ie a pope that is protected) in just such situations. What would happen if the orginal Apostles had a 6-6 split on something they knew Jesus taught then what? I think we had better have an protected person when breaking a tie don’t you think otherwise we just lost a crucial teaching of Jesus to uncertainty.
It would be similar to what was occuring with the Jews all trying to follow the book but splintering of into many different sects based upon their interpretations. Sure the books contained Gods word but how to understand that word? Do you think God would be so short sighted to let that happen again?
However, I honestly think you are seeing infallibilty incorrectly. Infallbility isn’t for the benefit of the person (ie the bishops or the pope) but is for the benefit of the Truth. Without infallibilty you CANNOT be sure of what is the truth which then renders Jesus promise when sending the Holy Spirit void. For if we have as you say an infalliblity that was not/cannot be passed down then we have lost the truth because it can never be known. We have a bible with the truth hidden in it somewhere but absolutely no way of knowing what it is. Is this truly what you think Jesus promised his Church and do you really think Jesus would come to earth, preach his gospel and then leave absoultely no way to discern what he meant? What good would that be? So he opened a door to salvation but no one has any idea about how to walk throught it – then what was the point of his coming in the first place?
This analysis is, with all due respect, wrong. Jesus gives it to the apostles…all of the apostles, so if you want to argue it is given to the Church as a whole in Mathew 18 instead of individual apostles, that’s fine. I can buy that…but then when the Church broke apart during the Great Schism, the apostolic seats were separated and the power of infallibility would have been severed, under the logic you just put forward. What does this mean? The Church today couldn’t be infallible based on the grounds that Jesus gave it to the Church (the apostolic thrones) and those thrones are not in communion.Your understanding still seems to go along the lines that infallibility flows through a line of succession which it doesn’t.
Infallibility is a gift of the Holy Spirit which is given in the here and now. It doesn’t come as a perk of being a bishop. Remember, there were MANY heretical bishops in the history of the Church. It is proverbial to say that the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops!
Infallibility is given to the CHURCH, through the Pope, or the Magisterium, or the Faithful, as the occasion requires. Only the Pope is given this gift as an individual, and only on matters regarding Faith and morals, and only when speaking ex cathedra.
But the gift is transmitted through the Holy Spirit, not through apostolic succession.
It is helpful to keep in mind that God didn’t put a Church mechanism in place which has been humming along without Him ever since. In reality the Church is actively and personally led by the risen Jesus Christ Himself, through the Holy Spirit, until the end of time. The Pope, is His vicar on earth, and the Magisterium are His apostolic successors to the original 12. But Jesus is the head of the whole body, not just the Pope or the Magisterium. That is why even the faithful are directly led by Jesus Christ too, through the Holy Spirit.
I would look at the problem simply from a philosophical point of view. Is the statement about Papal infallibility falsifiable? If the answer is yes then you know that the dogma is false and the Church has major issues. If the answer is no then why do you force yourself to believe that it is false? In your situation an honest approach would be the agnostic one thus simply saying that you do not know thus you are in doubt. There is nothing wrong with doubt even after having spent a lot of time trying to inform yourself.I recently started a thread about accepting communion despite the fact that I believe with all my heart, having studied and read the Catholic teaching very carefully, including the catechism, that Papal infallibility is false.
From some of the information I received there, especially writings from Vatican I, I have learned that I really should not be taking the Eucharist. In addition, I really cannot, according to the Church, be a truly practicing Catholic…including doing the very things Jesus clearly outlines in the gospels as proper ways to live, such as taking the Eucharist, confirmation, etc.
I have been in the Catholic Church my entire life, and have come back to the Church after years of being away, but now that I have studied the issues very carefully, and can’t accept this one Catholic teaching, I am left without a spiritual home. I believe in apostolic succession (except for infallibility), Church authority, the divinity of Jesus, the Nicene Creed, the gospels, the Catholic teaching on justification, and virtually every other teaching of the Church except those taught based on Papal infallibility. For instance, I believe that the Church has the authority to teach that contraception for married couples is correct, but they do not have the authority to declare that infallible…since I don’t believe they have infallibility and since Jesus did not directly address that issue and it cannot be inferred directly from his teachings. I believe in Church authority, but not infallibility, except on issues where it is clear from the gospels or the teachings of Jesus that something has been handed down to us and is infallible. But this isn’t really the point, the point is…because I believe what I have just stated, I cannot have the Eucharist, I cannot be a full-fledged member of the Church, and as a result, I cannot live the life I believe Jesus wanted me to live. So what do I do? I don’t want to disrespect the Church and just ignore their authority by taking communion and pretending to be in full communion with the Pope…but I don’t know what else to do.
Please help.
But before you do, please understand that I have already had extensive discussions on Papal infallibility and I cannot accept it in good conscience, so I don’t want this post to become a debate on that…I just need to know what I should do…How can I live a life the way Jesus wanted if I truly believe Papal infallibility to be false? What do I do? Should I be attending another Church in an attempt to receive the Eucharist?
Infallibility was given to the Church, excersiced throught he teachings of the apostles. And the Bishops are the successors to the apostles. Why does the teaching have to be so explicit in Scripture that it is there when they speak in union with the Pope? So your first problem seems more basic, you are working from a point of view of Sola Scriptura.Even if everything you say in this post is true about interpreting Mathew…you are still wrong. Why? Because if Jesus only gave infallibility to the other apostles as a group, my point still stands, because many (if not all) of the other apostolic seats have left the communion with the Catholic Church, and if those seats are necessary to have infallibility, then the Church cannot make claims of infallibility without them. Your interpretation still produces the same result. It just doesn’t make sense. You say Peter was the only one promised infallibility, but the Church says the others were as well, so you are disareeing with the Pope. The apostles were given infallibility, as the Church agrees, but the difference is about whether this infallibility is dependent on being in communion with Peter or not. And my point is, where do you see in Mathew that the infallibility promise to the other apostles only works if they are in communion with Peter? You don’t see it anywhere because it isn’t there.
Excellent post!Infallibility was given to the Church, excersiced throught he teachings of the apostles. And the Bishops are the successors to the apostles. Why does the teaching have to be so explicit in Scripture that it is there when they speak in union with the Pope? So your first problem seems more basic, you are working from a point of view of Sola Scriptura.
And we know that Christ intended His Church to be unified and that it is built on the Peter. So the sign of unity, is that the Bishops are in union with the Roman Bishop.
… Again, abandon the Sola Scriptura mentality you seem dead set on and then it will be easier to come to believe. If you do not believe in the Tradition of the Church, you are focused on the wrong issue; your problem is much more basic.
Exactly, they have left infallibility behind by seperating themselves from the Church. Have you tried the praying to St. Peter thing yet?That is exactly what Jesus says to the other apostles in Mathew 18! And those apostolic seats now belong to churches not in communion with Rome!
This is unrealistic. To say that a person should never make a definitive thought on an incomplete set of facts is not realistic. Is everything you believe completely 100% verifiable? No. Of course not. Does that mean you don’t bother to form opinions about anything you can’t verify 100%. If this were the case, how could anyone support a politician or a piece of legislation or a political philosophy? It would be impossible. You are asking me to be “agnostic” on this issue, but the truth is, the great weight of the biblical evidence I have leads me in one direction. It’s not like I am 50/50 on this. I am as certain as I can be without being 100% certain. I believe the scriptures make it impossible as I have outlined above. You may disagree with that, but no one here has yet to show WHY the Church is right for saying the apostles must be in communion with Peter for Mathew 18 to apply (infallibility to all the apostles). All of you are so certain but can’t present any evidence to refute my argument! Why should I believe the apostles ONLY were infallible when in communion with Peter? It doesn’t say that in Mathew 18.I would look at the problem simply from a philosophical point of view. Is the statement about Papal infallibility falsifiable? If the answer is yes then you know that the dogma is false and the Church has major issues. If the answer is no then why do you force yourself to believe that it is false? In your situation an honest approach would be the agnostic one thus simply saying that you do not know thus you are in doubt. There is nothing wrong with doubt even after having spent a lot of time trying to inform yourself.
As I have stated previously, I DO NOT have a sola scriptura attitude or belief. I BELIEVE the Bible is fallible, created by fallible men. I also believe it is extremely accurate and true, but that there are errors within it. So to paint that picture of me is totally false. Obviously if I believe the Church is fallible, I must believe the Bible is capable of error as well since the Church brought it together. It is POSSIBLE there are errors in the Bible.Infallibility was given to the Church, excersiced throught he teachings of the apostles. And the Bishops are the successors to the apostles. Why does the teaching have to be so explicit in Scripture that it is there when they speak in union with the Pope? So your first problem seems more basic, you are working from a point of view of Sola Scriptura.
It can be logically derived from scripture:
Looking at Mathew 28 “And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” it is clear he is talking to the Apostles as a group. And it was promised to be there forever.
In John 14, we have another promis to the group "“But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you” ".
But in Mathew 16: "That you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20 " It is clear he was talking to Peter specifically.
And we know that Christ intended His Church to be unified and that it is built on the Peter. So the sign of unity, is that the Bishops are in union with the Roman Bishop.
It is best if you read chapters 32-38 (actually paragraphs) of St Thomas Aquinas’s “Against the Errors of the Greeks” dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b32 it will help a lot.
I would also recommend the Proof from Tradition of the Church’s infallibility in the old Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#II
And finally Proof from Scripture and Proof from Traidtion of Papal Infallibility on the same page from the Encyclopedia.
All good sources. Again, abandon the Sola Scriptura mentality you seem dead set on and then it will be easier to come to believe. If you do not believe in the Tradition of the Church, you are focused on the wrong issue; your problem is much more basic.
Does this mean that the Church can choose to teach something that clearly disagrees with scripture? Because that is what they are doing in my view. I am not saying, “Well, because it isn’t in the scriptures, it must not be true!” I am saying the Bible specifically says something that goes against the Church’s teaching.Excellent post!
From earliest childhood (60+ yrs ago) I learned that what
the Catholic Church holds most dear is BOTH Scripture and Tradition.
Perhaps in the OP’s long journey outside the Church, he forgot that basic fact.
Hi ,I personally am glad I do not have those problems,I recently started a thread about accepting communion despite the fact that I believe with all my heart, having studied and read the Catholic teaching very carefully, including the catechism, that Papal infallibility is false.
From some of the information I received there, especially writings from Vatican I, I have learned that I really should not be taking the Eucharist. In addition, I really cannot, according to the Church, be a truly practicing Catholic…including doing the very things Jesus clearly outlines in the gospels as proper ways to live, such as taking the Eucharist, confirmation, etc.
I have been in the Catholic Church my entire life, and have come back to the Church after years of being away, but now that I have studied the issues very carefully, and can’t accept this one Catholic teaching, I am left without a spiritual home. I believe in apostolic succession (except for infallibility), Church authority, the divinity of Jesus, the Nicene Creed, the gospels, the Catholic teaching on justification, and virtually every other teaching of the Church except those taught based on Papal infallibility. For instance, I believe that the Church has the authority to teach that contraception for married couples is correct, but they do not have the authority to declare that infallible…since I don’t believe they have infallibility and since Jesus did not directly address that issue and it cannot be inferred directly from his teachings. I believe in Church authority, but not infallibility, except on issues where it is clear from the gospels or the teachings of Jesus that something has been handed down to us and is infallible. But this isn’t really the point, the point is…because I believe what I have just stated, I cannot have the Eucharist, I cannot be a full-fledged member of the Church, and as a result, I cannot live the life I believe Jesus wanted me to live. So what do I do? I don’t want to disrespect the Church and just ignore their authority by taking communion and pretending to be in full communion with the Pope…but I don’t know what else to do.
Please help.
But before you do, please understand that I have already had extensive discussions on Papal infallibility and I cannot accept it in good conscience, so I don’t want this post to become a debate on that…I just need to know what I should do…How can I live a life the way Jesus wanted if I truly believe Papal infallibility to be false? What do I do? Should I be attending another Church in an attempt to receive the Eucharist?
Hi ,I personally am glad I do not have those problems,
I am a Christian Non Conformist, so I am only speaking on those terms, as I would not like to put a Bomb into anything you have been advised on,
if you were like myself ( or as others may call Protestants ) ,I would personally pray for forgiveness of sins,only mean it in your Heart,secondly believe in what Jesus said about Salvation,he cannot lie.
I only differ because I believe in my Salvation through the word of Jesus ,I do not fear what man can do to me ,he doe’s not have control over my Soul.
I will finish on Trust and Believe what the Bible say’s also as in 2 Timothy 3 v 16 -17
and 2 Timothy 4 v 3 - 5.
Blessings.
Have they? Or did they never have it, which is why they left! They don’t claim to have infallibility and they say the Pope never had it either. And they have been around since the beginning of Christianity, as long as Rome! They were considered apart of Church tradition for the first 1000 years, and they disagree with papal infallibility! So for all of you who claim this is an issue of Church tradition, you should preface your argument with “Roman tradition,” because the Orthodox churches disagree and they have the same ancient tradition as Rome.Exactly, they have left infallibility behind by seperating themselves from the Church. Have you tried the praying to St. Peter thing yet?
Only if the Pope agrees. Ultimately, it all stems from his infallibility.The matter of papal infallibility is stressed because the pope (as successor of Peter, and as chosen by the act of the Holy Spirit) is the head of the church, and so he should have a major say in infallible doctrines. The Cardinals as a body can also issue infallible doctrines. Since the Holy Spirit and Christ are ever active and present in our church and through the pope, we believe the Spirit can move him to re-affirm doctrines as infallible. Not everything he says is infallible, but only when he specifically states that a certain doctrinve is infallible, when the Holy Spirit has moved him. I don’t see it as that big of an issue. If you truly believe that the Spirit is active in the church, you should trust that God would not let the pope just declare some random nonsense as infallible. But that’s just my opinion (no offense meant, I’m just trying to say express my thoughts on the matter).
Please show me in any Church documents that say infallibility is transmitted from bishop to bishop. It’s not that I am wrong, it’s that you are disagreeing with the Church. You are reading the Bible and coming to your own conclusions. The bible never says the apostles and their successors will be infallible. I don’t know where you are coming up with this.This analysis is, with all due respect, wrong. Jesus gives it to the apostles…all of the apostles, so if you want to argue it is given to the Church as a whole in Mathew 18 instead of individual apostles, that’s fine. I can buy that…but then when the Church broke apart during the Great Schism, the apostolic seats were separated and the power of infallibility would have been severed, under the logic you just put forward. What does this mean? The Church today couldn’t be infallible based on the grounds that Jesus gave it to the Church (the apostolic thrones) and those thrones are not in communion.
You want to just ignore the fact that the other apostles were given the same infallible powers as Peter…and even when you do recognize it, you downplay it; saying it is somehow an inferior power. But where does it say that is an inferior power in the Bible??? It doesn’t anywhere!
Christ entrusted men to protect His Church and select his gospels…Without men, you don’t have a Bible. I think you should examine that paradox in Protestanism more carefully! Just friendly advice though!Hi ,I personally am glad I do not have those problems,
I am a Christian Non Conformist, so I am only speaking on those terms, as I would not like to put a Bomb into anything you have been advised on,
if you were like myself ( or as others may call Protestants ) ,I would personally pray for forgiveness of sins,only mean it in your Heart,secondly believe in what Jesus said about Salvation,he cannot lie.
I only differ because I believe in my Salvation through the word of Jesus ,I do not fear what man can do to me ,he doe’s not have control over my Soul.
I will finish on Trust and Believe what the Bible say’s also as in 2 Timothy 3 v 16 -17
and 2 Timothy 4 3 - 5.
Blessings.