Infallibility

[Splayd]

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding and inconsistency in the varying understandings and beliefs regarding infallibility that I wanted to look at.

Many Protestants scoff at the notion of Papal Infallibilty as if it's ludicrous to suppose that a man might ever speak infallibly... WHILE at the same time acknowledging that the Scriptures were written infallibly. SO there seems to be some understanding, by some denominations, that some men at some time, did in fact speak and/or write infallibly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Meanwhile - some Pentacostals who argue against the notion that the Pope can speak infallibly are lining up to hear "words of knowledge" and "prophecies" over their lives, church, town etc... and treating them as if their words are indeed the infallible words of God. They seem to argue against the one man BUT FOR the many other men (and women).

Now - I don't really want to limit the discussion to Papal Infallibilty as it's not particularly something I agree with either... BUT I do want to try to examine the whole concept of infallibility to better understand our perspectives and the reasoning behind them as well as the consistency of our beliefs.

So where do you stand on it all?

For Catholics - is it just the Pope? If so - why?

For non-Catholics - Was the bible written infallibly? Did some men in OT and NT speak infallibly at times? Do some speak infallibly at times today? If not - why not? If so - why not the Pope?

Peace

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

For non-Catholics - Was the bible written infallibly? Did some men in OT and NT speak infallibly at times? Do some speak infallibly at times today? If not - why not? If so - why not the Pope?

Yes, the Scriptures are infallible, and the inerrant and authoritative guide to all doctrine and ethics, and the record of all metascientific truth (existence of God, original sin, tc.) and redemptive-history.

They came from a community authorized by the Holy Spirit to record these truths- the apostles and their successors, the bishops of the apostolic church.

And the bishops of the apostolic church as as a whole are still authorized to teach the church on the basis of prior apostolic teaching (namely the Scriptures and the ecumenical teachings of the first millennium). Unfortunately the church has not held a universal meeting of all apostolic bishops in over 1000 years, since the Great Schism.

But anything believed by all apostolic bishops everywhere- Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican- is to be believed by all Christians everywhere.

 

[Splayd]

Thanks for your response GratiaCorpusChristi

I imagine that perspective is fairly common, particularly amongst other Lutherans, Orthodox and Anglicans. It seems to be addressing authority and verifiability more than the actual instance of infalibility though. The books of the bible were written by individuals though (traditionally and for the most part anyway). If their writing was done infallibly that's independant of their recognition as such.

While I acknowledge the relationship, it really only seems to address the validity in recognition of the infallible nature of scripture and not the act of writing it. SO - might the issue today (from your perspective) be expressed not so much as an inability to speak infallibly, but as an inability to properly recognise and validate that infallibility?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Thanks for your response GratiaCorpusChristi

I imagine that perspective is fairly common, particularly amongst other Lutherans, Orthodox and Anglicans. It seems to be addressing authority and verifiability more than the actual instance of infalibility though. The books of the bible were written by individuals though (traditionally and for the most part anyway). If their writing was done infallibly that's independant of their recognition as such.

While I acknowledge the relationship, it really only seems to address the validity in recognition of the infallible nature of scripture and not the act of writing it. SO - might the issue today (from your perspective) be expressed not so much as an inability to speak infallibly, but as an inability to properly recognise and validate that infallibility?

This is certainly partially the case. Part of the problem today is an inability to ecumenically validate which individual bishops are speaking authoritatively.

That said, however, I'm forced to reject your premise that the Scriptures were written by individuals. The various passages in the gospels seem to have circulated among the whole of the community as a series of oral traditions and perhaps, at times, as early liturgical texts recited communally (words of the institution, Lord's prayer, pre-Markan passion narrative, etc.).

It was their oral use by the entire community that made the gospels so recognizable when their stories were collected and ordered by indivdual authors.

I would also have to agree with Karl Barth that the Scriptures are only the Word of God when spoken among the Body of Christ. They are individual words of God when sitting on a shelf- their authority comes when spoken within the worship context.

 

[Splayd]

That said, however, I'm forced to reject your premise that the Scriptures were written by individuals.

I was hoping to avoid this trajectory, which is why I included the qualifiers in brackets.

I'm not suggesting your points re: this matter aren't valid, nor that that aren't worthy of further discussion... just that that's a whole other discussion in itself.

Mind you - I'm not sure that you really disagree with my qualifiers, just the general statement. Perhaps I neede to clarify my statement further.

Regardless - the point which is pertinent to this discussion remains. Individuals within scripture and in writing parts of scripture wrote or spoke infallibly at least on some ocassions, unless you disagree that Peter actually said (insert here) or that Paul actually wrote (insert here). No?

 

[a_ntv]

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding and inconsistency in the varying understandings and beliefs regarding infallibility that I wanted to look at.

Many Protestants scoff at the notion of Papal Infallibilty as if it's ludicrous to suppose that a man might ever speak infallibly... WHILE at the same time acknowledging that the Scriptures were written infallibly. SO there seems to be some understanding, by some denominations, that some men at some time, did in fact speak and/or write infallibly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Meanwhile - some Pentacostals who argue against the notion that the Pope can speak infallibly are lining up to hear "words of knowledge" and "prophecies" over their lives, church, town etc... and treating them as if their words are indeed the infallible words of God. They seem to argue against the one man BUT FOR the many other men (and women).

Now - I don't really want to limit the discussion to Papal Infallibilty as it's not particularly something I agree with either... BUT I do want to try to examine the whole concept of infallibility to better understand our perspectives and the reasoning behind them as well as the consistency of our beliefs.

So where do you stand on it all?

For Catholics - is it just the Pope? If so - why?

For non-Catholics - Was the bible written infallibly? Did some men in OT and NT speak infallibly at times? Do some speak infallibly at times today? If not - why not? If so - why not the Pope?

Peace

The infallibility belongs to the Church.
And it is because the Church is the Body of Christ and Chirst is the the Truth.

This infllibility can works in many ways: pope ex catthedra, ecumenical councils, tradition, Bible, liturgy, ECFs....

In fact also the papal infallibility is simply .. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals (CVI)

To understand the infallibility, we shall always start from to think that the subject of the infallibilty is ONLY the Church: otherwise it is meanless

But anything believed by all apostolic bishops everywhere- Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican- is to be believed by all Christians everywhere.

It is right to say that if the bishops of the CC/EO/OO agree in something (like the seven sacraments) it is a proof of it. IMO this proof is surely a better proof than a couple of verses in the Bible

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

It is right to say that if the bishops of the CC/EO/OO agree in something (like the seven sacraments) it is a proof of it. IMO this proof is surely a better proof than a couple of verses in the Bible

Yes and despite our mutual disagreement as to the apostolicity of the Anglican Communion and the Swedish Lutheran churches, I totally agree with you and Pope Benedict that 'proof-texting' is both bad exegesis and bad theology.

 

[a_ntv]

Yes and despite our mutual disagreement as to the apostolicity of the Anglican Communion and the Swedish Lutheran churches, I totally agree with you and Pope Benedict that 'proof-texting' is both bad exegesis and bad theology.

It have been clearly showed (by protestant) that unfortunatly the Church of Sweden due all his ordinations to a bishop ordination performed only by Lutherans elders, and so it is easy to see that such a Church has not any apostolic succession (see ad instance http://reader.classicalanglican.net/?page_id=315).

There are anyway a few Lutherans with Apostolic Succession (the apostolic lines caming from former catholic and orthodox bishps), and these groups could do also the "service" to re-order the Lutheran pastors who want it (http://www.ecclnet.org/)
If you know of some Lutheran students to became pastors, you can tell them to explore this way in order to be both true Lutheran pastors and with a sure apostolic succession: I think it is very ecumenic.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

There are anyway a few Lutherans with Apostolic Succession (the apostolic lines caming from former catholic and orthodox bishps), and these groups could do also the "service" to re-order the Lutheran pastors who want it (http://www.ecclnet.org/)
If you know of some Lutheran students to became pastors, you can tell them to explore this way in order to be both true Lutheran pastors and with a sure apostolic succession: I think it is very ecumenic.

Good to know, thanks. Bringing apostolic succession to my denomination is one of my vocational goals.

 

[Deren]

For non-Catholics - Was the bible written infallibly?

The original manuscripts were inspired by God, hence they were infallible, yes.

Did some men in OT and NT speak infallibly at times?

Indeed.

2 Peter 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Do some speak infallibly at times today?

No.

If not - why not?

Because the biblical canon is closed, and Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to live in believers to guide, teach, and remind them of the things that Jesus has already spoken.

If so - why not the Pope?

The Pope no more speaks infallibly that I do for the simple reason pointed out above. Biblical canonicity is tied directly to inspiration and infallibility. And since the canon is closed, then there is no more need for humans to speak infallibly as suggested that the Pope does, because what is proclaimed will never make it into the biblical record.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Because the biblical canon is closed

How do you know that it's closed?

 

[DArceri]

Because the Book of Revelation is the last Book to date and in that book it is revealed to John by Christ Himself that the next biblical event that will happen is HIS SECOND COMING. Sounds like it is closed to me, at least for now.

 

[Margim]

Something I never seem to get a clear answer on in these discussions (and I hope this isn't going to send the thread off on a tangent) is where infallibility actually enters the picture? Is it a biblical reference (and which one), a later decree, or just someone's idea of a reasonable claim?

 

[DArceri]

Something I never seem to get a clear answer on in these discussions (and I hope this isn't going to send the thread off on a tangent) is where infallibility actually enters the picture? Is it a biblical reference (and which one), a later decree, or just someone's idea of a reasonable claim?

The bible claims divine authority. It is grounded upon God Himself.

1 Thessalonians 2:13
And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

 

[buck]

KJV English Concordance for "Infallibility"
Learn More About Our Word Search Tools
Sorry! the word Infallibility doesn't occur in the KJV

 

[Splayd]

KJV English Concordance for "Infallibility"
Learn More About Our Word Search Tools
Sorry! the word Infallibility doesn't occur in the KJV

Then there mustn't be such a thing because the KJV would say so as it's infallible and all

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Because the Book of Revelation is the last Book to date

Actually it's not. Even if you assume a late date for Revelation, the Johannine epistles and 2 Peter were certainly written later.

and in that book it is revealed to John by Christ Himself that the next biblical event that will happen is HIS SECOND COMING.

Why must all revelations of God be biblical events?

 

[a_ntv]

Something I never seem to get a clear answer on in these discussions (and I hope this isn't going to send the thread off on a tangent) is where infallibility actually enters the picture? Is it a biblical reference (and which one), a later decree, or just someone's idea of a reasonable claim?

To understand correctly the infallibility we shall understand that the infallibility belongs to the Church, and that it can be expressed in various way: pope, communion of bishops, ecumenical councils, liturgy, bible, Early Fathers, local council and synods, uses...

Mt 16:18: I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
From here we can see the base of the infallibily of the Church: a promise of Christ to follow and protect the own Church from every attack. It does not state that there will be no attacks, but it state that there will be given the grace to restore the ancient doctrine/moral.

Because of that it is clear that the infallibily works mainly when there are attacks to the Church: there were the Arians, and so the Church reacted with the council of Nicaea. Also any other councils were against attacks to the Chuch. Some time the attacks were more direct, sometime not direct but even more dangerous, like the modernism in Europe in the XX century that leads to atheism.

Mt 16:19, to the Pope(Peter)
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
Mt 18:18, to the bishops(Apostloes)
Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Here we have a clear detail of the infallibily (these two statments shall be read toghether, as the CVII have clearly teached): What the Church does here is valid also for God in the heaven.
We can go on: because God is perfect justice and the Truth and cannot bear falsity inthe heaven, it means the Church is helped to take always the true decision

 

[DanielRB]

Peace, All

The OP is a very good question.

One thing to remember: "infallibily" can rarely be objectively proven or disproven.

Usually, "infallibility" is applied to matters of "faith and morals" ("inerrancy" is the usual term for "without any kind of error", including of historical, scientific and other matters).

Matters of "faith and morals" are not objectively observable. We might think it more "reasonable" to believe in, say, one God as opposed to many; but we can't "prove" it except to appeal to some kind of authority (the Bible, the Pope, a personal vision, etc)--nothing truly scientifically testable.

In principle, I have no problem believing that an almighty God could keep the Church, the Pope, the Bible or anything else from error in matters of faith and doctrine. To question this is to really question the assumption that God is truly almighty.

We might not "like" one of the matters of faith and doctrine which are assumed to be infallible that is supported by Scripture, the Church or the Pope. But our personal preferences tell more about ourselves than about God.

In the end, it's about faith.

In Christ,

Daniel

 

[DArceri]

Actually it's not. Even if you assume a late date for Revelation, the Johannine epistles and 2 Peter were certainly written later.

Really, and where do you get that from? I thought Peter was martyr at the same time Paul was martyred. That would leave John, who died of old age in prison, and his epistles and the Book of Revelation the last writings. What is your source?

Why must all revelations of God be biblical events?

God reveals himself to all of us through the Holy Spirit, but as far as what is considered biblical, do you know of any biblical event that has taken place since the last book was written?