Papal Infallibility.

[WarriorAngel]

Christ said He would NOT leave the Spirit to the world.
He said this to His men. In private.

 

[icedtea]

So you are saying none of us have the Holy Spirit. Just the "men in charge." No thanks.

 

[Trento]

I believe this view is flawed. It is only when The Pope sits in a special throne and makes a statement that he is infallible...
somehow, I think this is putting the pope above God.

Anyway, I have had about 5 threads picking on Evanglicals and one picking on Anabaptists so I figured I would start a thread about Roman Catholics.

Equal opportunity.

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching. 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 . . . ").

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.
Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church so the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).

 

[WarriorAngel]

So you are saying none of us have the Holy Spirit. Just the "men in charge." No thanks.

What I am saying is He left the Spirit within the Church with His men.

For the laity to have the Spirit, they would have to believe that which was left by Christ THROUGH His men. Correct?

Can the Spirit be divided between truth and men's ideas of truth?

And if the men have the Spirit, and it says in scriptures to whom they will baptize or be confirmed [laying of hands who did not recieve the Spirit in baptism] to receive the Spirit, then the Spirit is for the men [Apotles] to help give to others.

Its like a wedding band.
Yes we can receive the Spirit, and Christ made it so we could receive the Spirit.

Some recieve the imperfect truth, while others sustain the graces of the sacraments of the Spirit to receive constant aid from the Spirit.

Neither of which can make a complete claim the other does not have the Spirit by grace....

But none can claim by themselves that they merited the Spirit.

Heirarchy.

Christ
Peter
Apostles
laity.

It says no where in scriptures that man by themselves without the aid of baptism and other sacred rituals [sacraments] will receive the Spirit unto themselves.

Does it?

 

[WarriorAngel]

So you are saying none of us have the Holy Spirit. Just the "men in charge." No thanks.

What I am saying is He left the Spirit within the Church with His men.

For the laity to have the Spirit, they would have to believe that which was left by Christ THROUGH His men. Correct?

Can the Spirit be divided between truth and men's ideas of truth?

And if the men have the Spirit, and it says in scriptures to whom they will baptize or be confirmed [laying of hands who did not recieve the Spirit in baptism] to receive the Spirit, then the Spirit is for the men [Apotles] to help give to others.

Its like a wedding band.
Yes we can receive the Spirit, and Christ made it so we could receive the Spirit.

Some recieve the imperfect truth, while others sustain the graces of the sacraments of the Spirit to receive constant aid from the Spirit.

Neither of which can make a complete claim the other does not have the Spirit by grace....

But none can claim by themselves that they merited the Spirit.

Heirarchy.

Christ [Invisible Head]
Peter [Visible Head]
Apostles [Bishops, priests, deacons..etc]
laity. [sheep to be fed]

It says no where in scriptures that man by themselves without the aid of baptism and other sacred rituals [sacraments] will receive the Spirit unto themselves.

Does it?


I hope this came out clearer than I think it did.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Indeed. So then is it possible to the have the Spirit of God kept within your 'teachings' and 'feeding the sheep' that the Spirit will allow errors to be spread?

Probably not, but then we just celebrated Reformation Sunday.

Belief in the Spirit and His unending Presense means that all things will be kept intact. And He is on duty 24/7 because Christ ALSO said...'The gates of hell shall NOT prevail.'

I think even a quick read of the OT will teach you that God's people do not always do and preach correctly. And we are warned - repeatedly - of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists, those that would lead many astray. We are told to 'test the spirits' to see if they are correct, and that God holds in distane those that say "God says" when God said no such thing. Therefore, I disagree that the best way to provide accountability is for a teacher to self-appoint himself as the sole teaching authority, the sole interpreter of Scripture, teh sole interpreter of anything else the self-same teacher chooses to embrace, the sole arbiter of everything he wants to arbitrate, and infallible in all the above. I don't think that's a good system of accountability, I think that's a tad circular and self-authenticating - but we disagree passionately on that point, and I respect that.

IE...that which the Holy Spirit dwells will not be overcome by satan and errors.

First of all, this promise was not made to the Roman Catholic denomination - or any other. And it is not a promise that there would never be any error or that the Pope is infallible. Nope.

Second, it says the gates of hell cannot prevail over us. Gates are defensive, not offensive. This means Satan is no match for us, it does not mean that the RC denomination is infallible and unaccountable.



My $0.01


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching.

I completely agree.


Therefore, I do not accept that this is a teaching of Christ and His Apostles - some secret kept out of Scripture but given to the RC instead - because it's just not there from the beginning.

This DOGMA (the highest level of certainty, the highest level of assurance, what we MUST accept and cannot question, to deny is to be a heretic and one's salvation is in question) dates to 1877. Kinda makes OSAS seem old by comparison, but I realize the roots of the teaching go back earlier than 1877. I'm not the expert on early Christianity that you are, but it seems to ME the doctrine of the Pope was a direct result of the conflict with the East, a way for the Bishop of Rome to attempt to assert control over what was generally considered peers. Looks like a power grab to me. But I know Catholics embrace this as dogma taught by all Christians since 33 AD and the East just forgot it and the CC didn't declare it as the dogma they knew it was until 1877, and I believe they are perfectly sincere and genuine. While it MAY have developed as a power/political/control/authority thing and out of the struggle with the East, that's surely not the context today. I know that.


The teaching is not found ANYWHERE - even remotely - in God's Holy Scripture, or in the teachings of the ECF. I agree with you, it's a late and western thing.



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[icedtea]

So then the Catholic cchurch is what has caused the division!

 

[lionroar0]

So then the Catholic cchurch is what has caused the division!

Most if not all of the mainstream protestant denominations were already stablished before 1877 and the proclamation of Dogma.

Peace

 

[Trento]

[/size]


I. I'm not the expert on early Christianity that you are, but it seems to ME the doctrine of the Pope was a direct result of the conflict with the East, a way for the Bishop of Rome to attempt to assert control over what was generally considered peers. Looks like a power grab to me. But I know Catholics embrace this as dogma taught by all Christians since 33 AD and the East just forgot it and the CC didn't declare it as the dogma they knew it was until 1877, and I believe they are perfectly sincere and genuine.



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

The Pope NEVER held the title "First Among Equals." However, he DID posses the titles "Vicarius Christi" (Vicar of Christ, late 300's), "Servus Sevorum Dei" (Servant of the Servants of God, mid-400's), and Yep, you guessed it, "Head of the Church" (late 400's), a title by which the Pope is addressed, not only by innumerable Eastern Fathers, but ALSO by the synodal letters from THREE Ecumenical Councils (Chalcedon, Constantinople III, and Nicaea II). So, anyone who denies that the Pope of Rome is Head of the Church does not stand with the Council Fathers.

 

[WarriorAngel]

[/i]









And we are warned - repeatedly - of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists, those that would lead many astray.


.

I find your post ironic.

 

[chilehed]

John 14:16-18 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. {comfortless: or, orphans}

John 14:26 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

These verses don't promise anyone that they will never teach error (unless I'm missing something). Plus, these verses are written to those who believe in Jesus, not a select few.

sunlover

Jesus promises to send them the Holy Spirit to dwell in them, to teach them truth, and to help them remember everything he taught them - and you don't see it as a promise that they'll never teach error? So what does that mean, are you saying that we have no assurance that the New Testament writings are God-breathed and thus inerrant?? And if they aren't a promise of infallibility, (which they are) and they are directed to all believers (which they aren't), then that undermines the Protestant idea that all believers will be led to a true understanding of doctrine.

Look at the context; Jesus said those things in a private conversation with the Apostles. He said nothing to direct his promises to anyone other than the Apostles, and there is nothing anywhere in Sacred Scripture that says that those promises were intended for all believers.

On the other hand, there are numerous passages that indicate the contrary - that not all are given to authoritatively interpret God's revealed truth: Rom 13:1-2; 1 Cor. 12; Heb. 13:17; 1 Tim 1:3; 2 Pet. 1:16–21, 3:2; 2 Pet. 3:2; 2 Pet. 3:16; Jude 8, 10-11 (ref. to Num 16).

 

[Rick Otto]

RCC, Orthodox, OR Protestant, you can trust men with sophisticated titles, and their sophisticated rationales, but it all looks like egoistic control issues in the light of scripture's simple truths.

They confuse conformity with unity, IMHO.

I don't need to be agreed with, just to speak my mind freely & respectfully, and be treated with respect when having done so.
The church is the pillar of truth, but I don't need anyone to tell me who the church is, scripture is plain enough about it.
The negative results of churchianity far outweigh the positives, taking even just a glance at history.
All the attempts at organizing the body of Jesus into an exclusive conclave have failed, Rome being merely the first in a long line of failures.
Protestants reformed soteriology, but left ecclesiology in a mess, so My critique of Rome is not a defense of Protestants, per se.

The truth is not as exhaustively complicated & mysteriously dense as some would have us believe.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

They confuse conformity with unity, IMHO.

Good point...

Some also confuse control with truth.
Some denominations are VERY into control and authority - and impose that on others. It doesn't mean they are correct, only that they are able to control.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

And we are warned - repeatedly - of false teachers, false prophets, antichrists, those that would lead many astray. We are told to "test the spirits" to see if they are correct.

I find your post ironic.

I find the warnings strong, and so when a teacher insists: "I'm the sole teacher here. I'm the sole authority. I'm the sole interpreter. I'm the sole arbiter. I'm infallible. I'm unaccountable" Well, sends up a big warning flag in my mind... It doesn't make it a false teacher, of course, but I'd sure be careful. Anyone who demands on being unaccountable probably knows he needs to be so regarded.

Different epistemologies, I suppose...


Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Trento]

Good point...

Some also confuse control with truth.
Some denominations are VERY into control and authority - and impose that on others. It doesn't mean they are correct, only that they are able to control.

Many of us would fail that test of obedience when Scripture commands: "obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account" (Hebrews 13:17). Indeed "there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9) for even the first apostles were denied and disobeyed by many who claimed Christ. However, if we study in Scripture both the authority of the apostles and the ill rejection of that authority, we may learn how to identify, respect, and obey our authentic spiritual leaders of today rather than joining with those who "accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, turning away from listening to the truth" (2nd Timothy 4:3).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Many of us would fail that test of obedience when Scripture commands: "obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account" (Hebrews 13:17).

So, are leaders unaccountable? Are they infallible if they so self-claim?

What if my leader was Joseph Smith? Or Arius? Or Mary Baker Eddy? Or Jimmy Jones? Would your counsel be the same? Or does this only apply to leaders of your particular denomination but no other leader?

 

[Montanaman]

[/size]

So, are leaders unaccountable? Are they infallible if they so self-claim?

What if my leader was Joseph Smith? Or Arius? Or Mary Baker Eddy? Or Jimmy Jones? Would your counsel be the same? Or does this only apply to leaders of your particular denomination but no other leader?

Nope. None of those people have any realistic claim to authority. I know you reject the plain reading of scripture and the evidence of history, but I see it clear as day. It's no arbitrary "self-claim" as you say. Lol. That's willful ignorance. None of those people have, in any realistic way, a mandate from Christ. The apostles and their successors, the bishops, do.

It's that simple. It's no mere "self-claim."

 

[Borealis]

considering the popes of the catholic church supported such theories as the flat earth,

That was a scientific theory, not a religious doctrine.

burning of supposed heretics for the horrible crime of daring to want to read and study the bible for themselves,

Not true. Nobody was burned for wanting to read and study the Bible. They were burned for teaching falsely about Christ and what the Bible meant. They were also burned for falsely translating the Bible to suit their own personal beliefs rather than what was originally intended.

Further, I suggest you do a study of England during Elizabethan times and see just how many Catholics were burned at the stake by Calvinists and Anglicans.

and the catholic leaderships tacit support of nazi germany how can anyone realistically believe any sort of papal infallibility?

If I typed out what I felt about what you wrote I would give the computerized censor a heart attack. The claim that Pope Pius XII gave tacit support to the Nazis is a filthy lie that anti-Catholics have been spreading for forty years. Pius XII was the best friend European Jews had, and THEY knew it. Tens of thousand of Jews were hidden in the Vatican and escaped to other parts of the world from Rome thanks to the Pope's efforts. Why didn't he speak up more against the Nazis? Because a) the Nazis weren't going to listen anyway, since they were a bunch of psychotic pagans, and b) all it would have done was give the Nazis an excuse to persecute the Church and prevent it from helping ANYONE to escape the Nazi death industry. The Nazis BANNED several of Pius XII's speeches and encyclicals from being translated into German, read at Masses, or broadcast on the radio BECAUSE he was speaking out against them as much as he dared to do.

Several prominent Jewish leaders of the time ended up converting to Catholicism because of Pius XII's efforts. For people to spread the sickening lie that he was a closet Nazi supporter enrages me more than anything else I read on this board.

Here's a question: how many Protestant leaders spoke out against the Nazis, whether in Europe or in America, when it became known that they were slaughtering Jews like cattle? How many of those enlightened souls gave a damn about the Jewish people then? And how many Jews did they help escape from the death camps?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So, are leaders unaccountable? Are they infallible if they so self-claim?

What if my leader was Joseph Smith? Or Arius? Or Mary Baker Eddy? Or Jimmy Jones? Would your counsel be the same? Or does this only apply to leaders of your particular denomination but no other leader?

Nope. None of those people have any realistic claim to authority.

So, YOUR leaders determine who has authority and who doesn't (and it happens to be them)? I think (no, I know) the LDS are certain that it's YOUR leaders who have no authority and only theirs that do.


It seems to ME you are rejecting the idea except when it's the RCC. The RCC tells you IT is the authority - and you agree. The LDS insists IT is the authority - and Mormons agree. I think there's a bit of a dilema there...

Of course, I would suggest leaders are not infallible and unaccountable (even if they are Catholic?). I would argue that all the biblical warnings apply to Catholics, Lutherans and Mormons alike - we should "test the spirits to see if they are correct." We need to heed the warnings about false prophets, false teachers, antichrists, those that would lead many astray - EVEN if they were ordained by a Catholic bishop!!!!!!!

So, we come back to Trento's point. That we are to submit to the authorities. Trento wrote,

Scripture commands: "obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account" (Hebrews 13:17).

I know you reject the plain reading of scripture

Actually, I FULLY accept the words of Scripture.

And fortunately, Catholics and Protestants fully agree on those words - the words in the text. Where our problem comes is over all those invisible words that Catholics insists are "there" and they "see" but no one else does. Since the RC denomination insists that it's own private interpretation IS what God says, therefore the Bible MUST teach what the RC denomination teaches - even if such is not in the Bible. This is a result of the epistemology Catholics insist is infallible when THEY ALONE use it (but ridiculed, rejected and scorn as circular and self-authenticating when anyone else uses it). I think if we could agree to read Scriptures (leaving our various Catechisms at home) we might make some progress.

You might want to read some Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. Just a suggestion. I think it will teach you MUCH about the approach you are suggesting. Just a suggestion.



Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah