Papal Infallibility - FACTS

TheCatholic

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2009
752
38
At the Vatican in spirit
✟1,083.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I see a lot of talk in a couple of threads about Papal Infallibility. I want to use an online article as the basis for this thread. Please read the entire article. Here is the link: Papal Infallibility


Here is a brief quote from the article:

QUOTE:

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep..."), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter...").


Based on Christ’s Mandate


Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).


Some Clarifications


An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.

END QUOTE

Read the rest of the article here: Papal Infallibility
 

OpenDoor

Faith + Hope + Love
Apr 17, 2007
2,431
145
✟10,786.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In Acts 15:1-21 there is a council at Jerusalem regarding circumcision.
It is true that Peter speeks, but Barnabas and Paul continue to address the assembly even after Peter has spoken. James after listening to Peter, Barnabas, and Paul about why circumcision is not necessary for salvation, then says, "It is my judgment, therefore..." Acts 15:19

It does not sound like Peter was in charge let alone considered infallible. If Papal Infallibility is true no one at this council knew about it.
 
Upvote 0

TheCatholic

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2009
752
38
At the Vatican in spirit
✟1,083.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
In Acts 15:1-21 there is a council at Jerusalem regarding circumcision.
It is true that Peter speeks, but Barnabas and Paul continue to address the assembly even after Peter has spoken. James after listening to Peter, Barnabas, and Paul about why circumcision is not necessary for salvation, then says, "It is my judgment, therefore..." Acts 15:19

It does not sound like Peter was in charge let alone considered infallible. If Papal Infallibility is true no one at this council knew about it.

That council was infallible, which is to say that when they made their decision, they were guided by the Holy Spirit and they did not make a mistake. That is the essence of infallibility: Being prevented from making a mistake in certain instances.

And we believe that such special councils are infallible, which is what your scripture reference indicates. However, Conciliar Infallibility is not the subject of this thread - although I guess we could expand the topic to include that too maybe. We'll see. But the topic is Papal Infallibility, and you're right that Acts 15:1-21 does not deal directly with that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

OpenDoor

Faith + Hope + Love
Apr 17, 2007
2,431
145
✟10,786.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That council was infallible, which is to say that when they made their decision, they were guided by the Holy Spirit and they did not make a mistake. That is the essence of infallibility: Being prevented from making a mistake in certain instances.

And we believe that such special councils are infallible, which is what your scripture reference indicates. However, Conciliar Infallibility is not the subject of this thread - although I guess we could expand the topic to include that too maybe. We'll see. But the topic is Papal Infallibility, and you're right that Acts 15:1-21 dioes not deal directly with that.
but do you agree that no one at this council knew about Papal Infallibility?
edit- you should also notice that if there was a THE Pope at this council it seems to be James
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TheCatholic

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2009
752
38
At the Vatican in spirit
✟1,083.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
but do you agree that no one at this council knew about Papal Infallibility?

I believe that our understanding of God's revelation becomes clearer over the centuries.

Yes, they probably did not know of Papal Infallibility the way we describe it. But then again, I doubt if they could have articulated the nature of the Trinity the way Christians can today either. And if you had asked an apostle which books would be in the New Testament they probably would have scoffed at the idea that their personal letters should be included along side their sacred Hebrew Scriptures.

So there is much they did not know that we know today. But that does not make we know today any less true.

you should also notice that if there was a THE Pope at this council it seems to be James
No. He had a special place because Jerusalem was his area. Just like if the pope visits New York, the Archbishop of New York will have a special place in any meetings with the pope, out of respect.
 
Upvote 0

OpenDoor

Faith + Hope + Love
Apr 17, 2007
2,431
145
✟10,786.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I believe that our understanding of God's revelation becomes clearer over the centuries.

Yes, they probably did not know of Papal Infallibility the way we describe it. But then again, I doubt if they could have articulated the nature of the Trinity the way Christians can today either. And if you had asked an apostle which books would be in the New Testament they probably would have scoffed at the idea that their personal letters should be included along side their sacred Hebrew Scriptures.

So there is much they did not know that we know today. But that does not make we know today any less true.
in away I agree
I believe that if you told Peter about Papal Infallibility he would have had no idea what you were talking about.
 
Upvote 0

OpenDoor

Faith + Hope + Love
Apr 17, 2007
2,431
145
✟10,786.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No. He had a special place because Jerusalem was his area. Just like if the pope visits New York, the Archbishop of New York will have a special place in any meetings with the pope, out of respect.
and I think we would both be very surprised if after the Pope spoke the Archbishop of New York said, "It is my judgment, therefore...".
To me that sounds like ex cathedra
 
Upvote 0

squint

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2007
16,182
903
Mountain Regions
✟20,405.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin

Uh huh. And therefore that fact can/may also extend to the supposed infallible determinations made.

IF there is no guarantee that Popes ARE NOT sinning through their determinations in ANY WAY, then there are no guarantees of infallible statements.
 
Upvote 0

TheCatholic

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2009
752
38
At the Vatican in spirit
✟1,083.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Uh huh. And therefore that fact can/may also extend to the supposed infallible determinations made.

IF there is no guarantee that Popes ARE NOT sinning through their determinations in ANY WAY, then there are no guarantees of infallible statements.
That is a fallacious argument.

The men who wrote the Bible were sinners too, yet we all agree the Bible has no errors.

Using your logic, one could say that the Bible might have errors because the men who wrote it were sinners. Of course, as I said, that is poor logic.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

squint

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2007
16,182
903
Mountain Regions
✟20,405.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That is a fallacious argument.

The men who wrote the Bible were sinners too, yet we all agree the Bible has no errors.

I do not equate the words of any man to be equal in 'purity' to the Words of Jesus or of God in the O.T. Those words were confirmed by the powers and truths associated with their Words.

When the Apostles spoke with 'confirmation' they too were thusly speaking rightly. Even the RCC acknowledges confirmation by actions.

One thing that the Apostles contained however was TRUTH as it applied to their own evil present and indwelling sin. Every one of them. NONE of them would have dared to speak APART FROM THE TRUTH...of those facts...which the Pope does continually everytime he claims 'infallibility.'

Infallibility in the midst of evil present is not possible.

Using your logic, one could say that the Bible might have errors because the men who wrote it were sinners. Of course, as I said, that is poor logic.

Having 'revelation' of the meaning of Gods Words is not the same as speaking them. That's all there is to it. These are not equal speakings. The O.T. contained MANY of Gods Words that had no REVEALING until Christ came to show same. God One Upped Himself in Christ and AMPLIFIED His Own Words. Turned up the DIAL in Christ so we 'may' hear better.

Any man who picks up the WORD must stand in the TRUTH for the disclosures of what that WORD brings.

I will credit the Popes for being self admitted sinners with EVIL PRESENT with them, JUST LIKE PAUL.

And that FACT takes 'infallibility' off the table. No man sees IN FULL by the words of FACT.

enjoy!

squint
 
Upvote 0

TheCatholic

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2009
752
38
At the Vatican in spirit
✟1,083.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I do not equate the words of any man to be equal in 'purity' to the Words of Jesus or of God in the O.T. Those words were confirmed by the powers and truths associated with their Words.

And so are the pope's

Again you argument is fallacious. You have decided that God made certain men infallible and other men not, yet you have no proof for either one.
 
Upvote 0

squint

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2007
16,182
903
Mountain Regions
✟20,405.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And so are the pope's

Again you argument is fallacious. You have decided that God made certain men infallible

Where did you get that from? When the Apostles spoke the TRUTH it certainly was not done by infallibility, but IN TRUTH. I would consider Paul, speaking the FACT that he had evil present and indwelling sin that was not him was INFALLIBLE to that FACT. Did this make THE FLESH OF PAUL in which dwelt these 'things' infallible? Obviously the flesh of no man is justified in this way...nor is the mind of any man free of that working. The Truth speaks to those workings.

The TRUTH that they ALL admitted was that they had indwelling sin/evil present with them.

WERE the Pope to SPEAK that preamble BEFORE his supposed 'infallible statements' I'd probably give those statements a MUCH CLOSER LOOK because they would be preambled with THE TRUTH.

But you see THE POPE cannot BE that TRUTHFUL. If he were to be THAT TRUTHFUL none of you would listen to him. So he has to PRETEND that what he is speaking IS PERFECT and not claim RIGHT THERE on that SPOT that he speaks THE TRUTH by stating the fact that he has EVIL PRESENT and indwelling sin EVEN as he is speaking.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dark_Lite

Chewbacha
Feb 14, 2002
18,333
973
✟45,495.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Where did you get that from? When the Apostles spoke the TRUTH it certainly was not done by infallibility, but IN TRUTH. I would consider Paul, speaking the FACT that he had evil present and indwelling sin that was not him was INFALLIBLE to that FACT. Did this make THE FLESH OF PAUL in which dwelt these 'things' infallible? Obviously the flesh of no man is justified in this way...nor is the mind of any man free of that working. The Truth speaks to those workings.

The TRUTH that they ALL admitted was that they had indwelling sin/evil present with them.

WERE the Pope to SPEAK that preamble BEFORE his supposed 'infallible statements' I'd probably give those statements a MUCH CLOSER LOOK because they would be preambled with THE TRUTH.

But you see THE POPE cannot BE that TRUTHFUL. If he were to be THAT TRUTHFUL none of you would listen to him. So he has to PRETEND that what he is speaking IS PERFECT and not claim RIGHT THERE on that SPOT that he speaks THE TRUTH by stating the fact that he has EVIL PRESENT and indwelling sin EVEN as he is speaking.

...What?

Do you believe the Bible is inerrant/infallible? If so, you must believe that the people writing those texts were, at the time of writing, divinely inspired (led by the Holy Spirit, as it were).

Papal Infallibility is the same thing. The belief is that when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra he is protected from error in faith and morals via guidance from the Holy Spirit. The statements aren't new revelations, but it's no different than the Bible's making.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,601
12,132
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,181,791.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I must have missed something. The OP is titled "Papal Infalibility - FACTS", but I haven't seen any yet.
In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep..."), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter...").
The Patristic consensus on John 21:15-17 is the restoration of Simon to his apostleship after his threefold denial of Christ. In Luke 22:32 Christ did not pray that Peter would not err in teaching but that his faith would not fail since he was about to fall miserably and he could have sunk deep into despair (that afore mentioned threefold denial of Christ). Finally, the Patristic consensus on Matthew 16:18 is not supportive at all of Petrine infallibility let alone Papal infallibility. The simple truth is that Rome reads her new doctrines back into these passages after the fact, not that the doctrines are implicit in these passages.

John
 
Upvote 0

squint

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2007
16,182
903
Mountain Regions
✟20,405.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
...What?

Do you believe the Bible is inerrant/infallible? If so, you must believe that the people writing those texts were, at the time of writing, divinely inspired (led by the Holy Spirit, as it were).

Look, the premise is rather simple.

When Paul spoke the fact that he had indwelling sin, evil present, A DEVIL put upon himself by God, seeing IN DARKNESS and IN PART he was speaking THE TRUTH of the facts. Did speaking those TRUTHS then make Paul himself IN THAT CONDITION infallible? The Truth of the FACTS are what are infallible. That does not make the man speaking same infallible.

Like I said, were THE POPE to preamble his statements WITH THOSE FACTS I'd give him a MUCH CLOSER listen.

Papal Infallibility is the same thing. The belief is that when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra he is protected from error in faith and morals via guidance from the Holy Spirit. The statements aren't new revelations, but it's no different than the Bible's making.

And I might think he was protected simply by speaking TRUTHFULLY about the facts TRUTHFULLY.

The supposed infallibility of any man who cannot live with THE FACTS that the TRUTH brings may not be speaking TRUTH whatsoever. At the VERY BEST they will be speaking in the midst of those things right there, right then, with their existing conditions.

Show me a Pope who would be that truthful when speaking 'infallibly' and I'd say they'd be hauling him off the chair in a N.Y. minute and looking for a replacement.

s
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dark_Lite

Chewbacha
Feb 14, 2002
18,333
973
✟45,495.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Look, the premise is rather simple.

When Paul spoke the fact that he had indwelling sin, evil present, A DEVIL put upon himself by God, seeing IN DARKNESS and IN PART he was speaking THE TRUTH of the facts. Did speaking those TRUTHS then make Paul himself IN THAT CONDITION infallible? The Truth of the FACTS are what are infallible. That does not make the man speaking same infallible.

Like I said, were THE POPE to preamble his statements WITH THOSE FACTS I'd give him a MUCH CLOSER listen.



And I might think he was protected simply by speaking TRUTHFULLY about the facts TRUTHFULLY.

The supposed infallibility of any man who cannot live with THE FACTS that the TRUTH brings may not be speaking TRUTH whatsoever. At the VERY BEST they will be speaking in the midst of those things right there, right then, with their existing conditions.

Show me a Pope who would be that truthful when speaking 'infallibly' and I'd say they'd be hauling him off the chair in a N.Y. minute and looking for a replacement.

s

...What?

What does this have anything to do specifically with Paul saying he's a sinner? This argument applies to all the writers of the Bible, and there was more than just Paul, and Paul certainly said more than just "I'm a sinner."
 
Upvote 0