Papal Infallibility by Sebastian R. Fama The issue of Papal Infallibility evokes strong reactions from those who oppose it. This is usually due to a misunderstanding of what the Church means by "Papal Infallibility." The most common misconception is that the Church claims that the pope himself is infallible, that in all things he is incapable of error. This, of course, is not true! It is a necessity of Christian theology that every person be allowed the exercise of free will. Everyone, the pope included, must be free to accept or reject Christ for himself. If God were to make the pope infallible in the ultimate sense, he would be depriving him of his free will. Infallibility does not mean that a pope is incapable of sin. All popes are human and therefore sinners. Infallibility does not mean that the pope is inspired. Papal infallibility does not involve any special revelation from God. A pope learns about his faith in the same way that anyone else does--he studies. Infallibility cannot be used to change existing doctrines or proclaim new ones. It can only be used to confirm or clarify what has always been taught. The teachings of Christ cannot change. As the Scripture says, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). Infallibility does not mean that a pope cannot err when he speaks as a private teacher. As a man he is fallible and capable of error. Infallibility does not guarantee that a pope will officially teach anything. However, when he does teach he is protected. If he decides to teach the truth, the Holy Spirit allows it. If he decides to teach error, either knowingly or unknowingly, the Holy Spirit will stop him. Infallibility is not something that endows a pope with divine powers, but rather it is a gift of the Holy Spirit that protects the Church from the human frailties of a pope. All Christians believe that God used men infallibly in writing Scripture. Why then is it so hard to believe that He would work through men to protect it from corruption? Surely such a protection was implied when Jesus said to His disciples, "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16). The First Vatican Council taught that three conditions must be met in order for a pronouncement to be considered infallible: (1) The pope must speak ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) in his official capacity. (2) The decision must be binding on the whole Church. (3) It must be on a matter of faith or morals. The first two conditions can be reasonably deduced from Matthew 16:19: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The acts of binding and loosing in the context of the verse would by necessity be something more than casual remarks. The passage begins with Jesus saying, "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church" (16:18). The acts of binding or loosing would have to be official and meant for the whole Church. The third condition stems from the obvious fact that Christian teaching is primarily a matter of faith and morals. Christianity's main objectives have always been getting people to heaven (faith) and teaching them how to live here on earth (morals). Infallibility is also extended to the college of bishops when they, as a body, teach something in union with the pope. Collegial authority is usually exercised in an ecumenical council just as it was at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-29). Upon leaving the earth Jesus' final command to His apostles was to make disciples of all nations, "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Matthew 28:20). Are we to believe that Jesus left us no means of knowing exactly what He commanded? That would make His parting statement nonsense. The Catholic Church believes the Bible when it teaches that: (1) Jesus requires that we obey all that He commanded (Matthew 28:20). (2) Jesus gives us the grace to obey all that He commanded (Philippians 4:13). (3) Jesus provides us a means of knowing what He commanded (Matthew 16:15-19). Early Christian writers bear witness to the Church's infallibility. Cyprian declares: "If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, 251 AD). Irenaeus writes: "Where the charismata of the Lord are given, there must we seek the truth, with those to whom belongs the ecclesiastical succession from the Apostles, and the unadulterated and incorruptible word. It is they who …are the guardians of our faith…and securely expound the Scriptures to us" (Against Heresies 4:26:5, 180-199 AD). Despite the evidence, critics try to prove their case by appealing to three supposed examples of popes teaching error. The first two are Pope Liberius (352-366) and Pope Vigilius (537-555). Both were made to sign questionable statements of faith while under duress. This of course does not count, as Infallibility only applies to free acts of the pope and not to acts under torture. The third example is that of Pope Honorius (625-638). Critics of Papal Infallibility feel that this example demolishes the doctrine once and for all. Here, they contend, is an example of a pope teaching error. After his death, an ecumenical council (The Third Council of Constantinople) condemned him. What could be more contradictory than an infallible pope being condemned by an infallible council? However, in their excitement the critics have overlooked something -- the facts. The controversy stems from a letter that Pope Honorius wrote to Sergius, a Monothelite heretic. The Monothelite heresy maintained that Jesus had only one will, a divine will. The Church had always taught that Jesus was fully God and fully man. As such, He had both a divine and a human will. Before the heresy was widely known, Sergius sought to get the pope's approval by deception. In a letter to the pope he stated that Jesus never opposed the Father. Consequently, if two persons agree they may be spoken of as being of "one will." The pope, unaware of Sergius' deception, answered to the subject of Christ's "opposition" to the Father. He wrote in part: "We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ…Since Christ's human will is faultless there can be no talk of opposing wills." Subsequently, Monothelites fraudulently used this statement as proof that the pope believed with them that Christ had no human will. Pope Honorius was deceived and then misrepresented. Furthermore, the Third Council of Constantinople condemned him for inaction, but not for teaching heresy. In any event, his letter was private. Thus the issue of infallibility never even entered the picture. By the way, if papal infallibility really was just a human invention, don't you think that the list of errors after 20 centuries would fill at least one book? And yet we are presented with only three examples, three examples that are not even plausible. Does this not speak in favor of the Church's position? Ironically, many of the individuals who oppose the doctrine of papal infallibility claim to receive special revelations from God. Most believe that they can privately interpret Scripture in direct violation of 2 Peter 1:20. They characterize the doctrine of papal infallibility as arrogant, while claiming for themselves authority that goes far beyond it. And what is the fruit of their claims? Thousands of denominations all claim the Bible as their authority and yet all disagreeing on what it teaches. To make matters worse, many of their teachings change from time to time. Those who object to the doctrine of papal infallibility are the greatest proof of its need. An honest examination of the evidence can only lead to one conclusion: That Jesus Christ established an infallible Church. Scripture teaches it, logic demands it, and history confirms it. StayCatholic.com
Matthew 16:18 If one looks at the original Aramaic that you will see that Jesus uses two different words. "You are Peter(petros in Aramaic) and on this rock(petra in Aramaic). will I build my church." Petros means small rock in Aramaic. Petra means boulder or mountain in Aramaic. Jesus was refering to himself as the foundation of the church not Peter. We know that Peter was married because Jesus healed his mother in law. Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to ALL that follow him. You claim that the Pope is supposed to guard against the corruption of scripture. The Catholic version of the Ten Commandments leaves out the second commandment which prohibts the making and worship of idols and splits the 10th commandment into two commandments to make up for the ommision of the 2nd. The Holocaust was immoral. Since genocide is a matter of morality and is in and of itself immoral, Pope Pious XII should have condemed The Holocaust. Pope Pious XII did nothing to condem the Holocaust and is on record and being an anti- Semite.
While we're on the Pope's case ~ In what sense did the Pope "write" his latest book over the period of a year during which he was incapable of all but the simplest of movements? I don't think there is any credibility whatsoever in the claim that he "wrote" the book, which simply put means that it's a lie. But the Catholic Church wouldn't lie now, would it?!
So what about all the abuses that this "infallible church" has sanctioned and been involved in throghout the centuries? It is utter nonsense to say "history confirms" the infallibility of either the church or the popes. They were wrong about many things - from burning heretics to supressing scientific advance. Also - were the Borges infallible?
Lets look at this point by point ~ An honest examination of the evidence? An genuinely honest (as opposed to distorded) examination would rather conclude that the Roman Church and the ensuing christianity owes it's existance to Emperor Constantine, if not on the basis that he purported (as opposed to practiced) christian belief, then for the fact that until Constantine christians were officially persecuted by the Roman State and may well have been exterminated entirely, as this was the State objective. Scripture teaches it? The scriptures that teach that JC established or wished to establish a church come from letters written by men. Those books of the bible composed of such writings have been dated between 200 and 400 AD, yet there is no mention of such in books dated circa 50 - 70 AD. Confabulation is the term used to describe an imaginary event as factual, and is the word that best describes attempts to give credibility to incredible assumptions such as JC teaching church establishment. logic demands it? er ~ logic demands factuality, surely? Unless of course "logic" really means "anyone who thinks the same as us"! history confirms it? Not so, and quite the contrary. See the above 3 points. Jesus Christ established an infallible Church? Should we start with the Dark Ages, The Inquisition, The Purges? When the Roman Catholic Church was founded by the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., it immediately achieved expansive influence at all levels of the imperial government. As Bible believing Christians separated themselves from the Church of Rome, which they saw as apostate, they represented a formidable potential threat to the official new imperial religion. Persecution in varying degrees of severity was instituted over the centuries following. Nothing like juggling the truth, is there now?? But that must be what Christ wanted given that all apologist christians do it.
you forget, certain things- john 21, 15 ¶ So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, feed my sheep. 18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be aold, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. 19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.
Sorry Juggla but these passages do nothing to support your claims. Jesus never specifically named Peter as the head of the church. Paul was the only one even close to being the head of the pre Catholic church.
No, he probably did not get out a pencil and paper and actually "write" his book. Don't be a dumbass, you know prefectly well that we have amazing new contraptions called "computers" and amazing software called "word processing" there is also dictation software that can be used without actually using your hands. But if you don't believe any of these extraordinary claims then look at others who have done the same thing. Take Stephen Hawking for example. He has written several books and yet is completely paralyzed with the exception of his eyes and his vocal chords.
As one who had the misfortune to work with sheep once, I can tell you that they are incredibly stupid creatures. You could probably feed them just about anything.
Although the New Testament was written in Greek, Jesus did not speak the Greek language. Scholars tell us that Jesus spoke Aramaic and probably Hebrew. The New Testament writers were, therefore, faced with the task of translating Jesus' Aramaic statements into Greek. In Jesus' native language of Aramaic He said to Peter in Matt 16:18: "And so I say to you, you are (Kepha) and upon this (kepha) I will build my Church....." When the New Testament writers went to translate Jesus' Aramaic word "kepha" (meaning rock) into Greek, they encountered a grammatical problem with masculine and feminine word forms. The Greek translators had no problem referring to an inanimate rock (kepha in Aramaic) with the Greek feminine noun petra. The problem arose when the Greek translators had to use the Greek Femininine word "petra" to refer to a man named "Kepha". To solve the problem the translators used the masculine name Petros, which is derived from the feminine Greek noun petra. As one can clearly see, the discrepancy in the Greek words found in Matt 16:18 was a the result of a grammatical difficulty encountered in translation. Once one understands the reason for the variation in Greek words found in Matthew, it becomes clear the the Apostle "Peter" and the "rock" on which Jesus would build His Church are one and the same. James Akin writes about Jesus' wor4ds to St. Peter recounted in Matt 16:17-19: "The second statement to Peter would be something which minimized or diminished him, pointing out his insignificance, with the result that Jesus would be saying, 'Blessed are you Simon Bar-Johnah! You are an insignificant little pebble. Here are the keys to the kingdom of heaven!' Such an incongruous sequence of statement would have been not merely odd, but inexplicable." T.L. Frazier writes about Peter: Acutally, if the Evangelist had intended to contrast Peter the 'stone' with Jesus the 'Rock', the obvious word to use for Simon Peter would have been lithos, the more common Greek word for stone or small rock. This would also have eliminated any possible confusion between Peter and Jesus. On the other hand, the deliberate use of petros and petra points to an attempt to translate and Aramaic pun into Greek, which of course is what Catholics contend. Interestingly, Jesus himself is called lithos (Math 21:42,44) four times more often than he's called petra (12 times to 3), a fact which doesn't dissuade Peter from characterizing all believers as 'stones' (lithoi) in 1 Peter 2:5.
In the Old Testament we find baby sacrifices and temple prostitution involving leaders of the OT religion (Jer 32:32-35, 2Kings 23:7). Of the twelve Apostles, one betrayed Christ, one denied Him, one refused to believe in His Resurrections, and they all abandoned Him at the Garden of Gethsemani. The Catholic Church is both human (scandals) and Divine (last forever). These things really have nothing to do with the Catholic Church being the one true Church. What St. Paul wrote concerning the Jews applies also to Christians: "What if some were unfaithful? Will their infidelity nullify the fidelity of God? Of course not!" Rom 3:3-4. Christ's faithfulness to His Church remains even when some of its members are unfaithful (2 Tim 2:13). Scandals do not nullify that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church. They only prove that the Church contains sinners(tares) as well as saints(wheat) Mat 13:24-30. ~An Juan Catholic Seminars The last few posts are some things I found helpful in explain the Catholic Church being the one true Church and the Papacy. Hope they help. Peace
If the Catholic Church is the one true church why did they murder those that opposed them? ie Huegenots,Waldenses,Jews ,various reformers etc.Why did Pope Pious 12 sign a concordat with Hitler declaring the Catholic Church to be the official state churh of Nazi Germany and name Hitler "Defender of the Faith". Why did Pope Pious 12 stay silent about the Holocaust? He is on record as being a Semite. The majority of the Catholic Church Hierarchy worked hand in hand with the Nazi's and then helped many Nazi war criminals escape justice. The predominately Catholic countries of Europe were the worst collaborators in the Holocaust. The predominately Protestant and Orthodox countries did a lot to help save their Jewish populations. Consider this. Not a single Nazi was ever excommunicated after the war. All of Hitlers henchmen and almost all of the SS were Catholics. The only prominent German clergyman to oppose Hitler was the Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoffer.Lets not forget the infamous American antisemite and Nazi sympathizer Father Coughlin who railed against Jews and praised Hitler. See A Moral Reckoning,David Jonah Goldhagen,Hitler' Pope:The secret history of Pope Pious XII.,Under His very Windows,Susan Zucotti. Further bibliography is available upon request. These books a few of many that document the Catholic Church's entanglement and collaboration with the Nazis. Don't forget that the Catholic Church sold "indulgences" as a way to raise $. Priests take a vow of poverty but you don't see the Pope or Cardinals living in poverty. The fact that Peter was married is clear from Matt 8:14,Mark 1:30,Luke 4:38 which speak of his mother, whose fever Jesus healed.Later in the Apostolic age,Paul states that Peter(Cephas) took his wife with him on journeys to various churches.I Cor.9:5 Peter was married so he could not have been pope. Crucial for understanding of Peters role is the interpretation of Matt 16:17-19. Did Jesus speak these words? Many scholars have denied that he could have done so. They point out that these verses have no paralell in any other Gospel, that Jesus throughout his ministry showed no particular interest in ecclesiastical organization, and that apart from Matt 18:17 the word church does not occur in any other passage in the four Gospels. They point out that James the brother of the Lord and Paul the apostle take the leadership of large portions of the church with no hint theat they are under Peters control. If we are to understand these verses, we must put aside certain modern pre-conceptions: (a) We must not assume that the word "church" meant to Jesus what it means today. We must not think in terms of advanced organization. We must not think that Jesus had seceded form Judaism and was speaking of an organization completely seperate form his ancestral religious home. He was speaking of the group which was centered in him and which was the true center of the people of God. Whatever Aramaic word he may have used- it may have been qahla or k nishta- meant his loyal people of God rather that an organization.(b) We must put aside all thought of succesors to Peter. The passage makes not mention of such. Peter is given a basic work to do, and nothing is said of any need or right to convey his authority and role to sucessors. (c) We must avoid the idea of external, automatic and exclusive authority. In Matt 18:18 Jesus gives to the entire group of discples authority like that which in Matt 16:19 he gives to Peter. Then in Matt 18:19-20 he promises to give to any two or three of his followers whatever they ask. It is clear to every Christian that this latter promise is spirituallly conditioned. A request for what is evil or damaging to others will be denied. There are unexpressed spiritual conditions, so the promise authority to Peter or to the entire group of disciples does not mean that unworthy human leadership or judgements will be santioned by God. The above was taken from The Intrepreters Dictionary of the Bible Volume 3 page 749-750. The Intrepreters Dictionary of the Bible is the work of 253 skilled writers and recognized Biblical scholars. It was planned and completed under the direction of George A. Buttrick, editor; assoc. editors Thomas S. Kepler, John Knox, Herbert Gordon May, and Samuel Terrien; and Emory Stevens Bucke editor of Abingdon Press Credentials at time of publication 1962 George Buttrick is preacher emeritus to the university and Plummer Professor of Chirstian Morals emeritius, Harvard University;professor Garrett Theological Seminary, and visiting Professor at Chicago Theological Seminary. Thomas Keple professor of New Testament language and literature, Oberlin Graduate School of Theology. John Knox prof. New Testament Union Theological Seminary,New York Herbert Gordon May prof. Old Testament language and literature Oberlin School of Theology. Samuel L. Terrien prof. Old Testament Union Theological Seminary NY Emory Stevens Buck editor Abingdon Press.
