Dr Guy Dr Guy

Catholic Misconceptions II - Infallibility

Catholic Misconceptions II - Infallibility

There is a very real misconception about how the Pope is Infallible.  Indeed, it is not only held by non-catholics, but many Catholics as well.  But the truth is that the Pope can only be Infallible when certain conditions are met.  And while the Church does not list how many times those conditions have been met, most theologians only agree on 2 instances.

The first was in 1854 When Pope Pius IX came out with the Immaculate Conception of Mary (another misconception for a later day).  The Second was in 1950 when Pope Pius XII spoke on the Assumption of Mary.

Some theologians believe there are more instances, and indeed there maybe.  But it was the Vatican Council I that came up with the official doctrine so any Infallible statements prior to that are argued upon, even though the doctrine has its roots in the Gospels and Paul's letters.  So while the Pope may have been speaking infallibly in the past, some dont recognize it until it became an official Teaching of the Church.

So it is evident that not everything the Pope says is infallible, and indeed from the sparsity of times it is even thought to have been done, most of the time the Pope is not infallible.

For the Pope to make an infallible statement, some conditions have to be met.  First he must be speaking ex cathedra, or for the whole Church. Second it cannot contradict any previous teachings of the Church. Third, he must basically state that he is resolving some point of Doctrine with absolute authority, and finally, he must be addressing the entire Church (the entire Church being all members of faith).

So while some Priests last year were railing against John Kerry and his pro-life position on abortion, no Pope has ever spoken Ex Cathedra on the subject, and therefore it is a teaching of the Church, not a doctrine of the Church.  And that in itself is a critical distinction.  For any Catholic can doubt a Teaching of the Church, and still remain a member in good standing.  But you cannot doubt a Doctrine of the Church and still remain a Catholic (Doubting in and Doubting out).

The Doctrine of Infallibility is a powerful one, and while the Church has been abusive in many of its practices in the past, that is one it has not abused.  And for Good reason.  For the whole concept behind Infallibility is that you are speaking with the Voice of God.  And even corrupt Popes did not want to cross Him!

5,109 views 41 replies
Reply #26 Top
Jesus did not give us a church. He gave us a faith. Man then made churches out of it.


Yes I can agree with this.....I understand what you are saying. I believe he gave us a church tho...but not a denomination. Church meaning people of course....ecclesia.

Pat Robertson.....ugh!!

Reply #27 Top

Yes I can agree with this.....I understand what you are saying. I believe he gave us a church tho...but not a denomination. Church meaning people of course....ecclesia.

I think you said it better.  I wsa referring to church in the respect of religion, but denomination works better.

Reply #28 Top
well I knew that...but I was wondering which verse?


Sola Scriptura was my answer to your question:

Can you tell me where I went wrong?
Reply #29 Top
My question to you would be......have you ever sat down and read the gospels yourself? Not the whole bible just the gospels?


Yes. Pretty much every version in print, including Coptic; oft times with Strong's Concordance and extracts from the Latin Vulgate and Greek Septuigant for comparative study. I also have a set of Gospels I picked up at a Monastery book sale that are from the latter mid 1800s (pre Vatican II before the changes in the vernacular). I prefer the New Jerusalem Bible.

My return question to you would be "why?" I wouldn't debate you if I had not. You misquote Timothy btw. Taking the entire text in it's context, it does not support Sola Scriptura.

Matthew 16:19 however does support Infallability. Of the several meanings generally agreed upon of the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. We are concerned more here with the first. The conference of authoritative teaching by Christ on Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, carries by it's very nature Divine inerrancy and Supreme authority to teach and speak for and to the entire Christian Church. The second would be the consequence of not recognizing that authority.
Reply #30 Top
Greek Septuigant


The Greek Septuigant is the OT Hebrew translated in Greek.

You misquote Timothy btw. Taking the entire text in it's context, it does not support Sola Scriptura.


How did I misquote this? I think it's pretty explanatory......notice the word "all" and "every"

first Bishop of Rome


This can not be proven.

From the bible - when Peter preached the first sermon in Acts 2 you see delegates coming from all over to hear this. Here is named....."Phrygia, Pamphylia in Egypt and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene and strangers of ROME, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."

Now these delegates heard the gospel, recieved the HS and went back and started spreading the gospel (good news) and by doing so the church was propagated.. It wasn't Peter who started the church in Rome it was the ones that heard Peter that day.. Now if you go to the last chapter of Romans you can see it even clearer. Paul is writing to the church of Romans and he gives greetings to the church people that are working in this church....and he doesn't mention Peter here at all. Peter wasn't there.

Now go to the book of Acts and read chap 15. This is the first council of Jerusalem. This was the council that recognized Gentiles were now allowed to enter the church alongside the Jews as equal heirs to salvation. After they all give their speeches, Peter included....James the head of the church gives his verdict.

V13 says...."After they had held their peace, James answered saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me."

It was James not Peter who was head of the church. As far as I know this is not debated in any writings.

quote]"why?"

because you say you are religious but you show a "hostility" for the holy scriptures. That's why. I thought maybe if you read it straight thru "prayerfully" God would speak to your heart.

Now please don't think I'm out to pick on the CC or any other group. I'm not. My heart is for the truth and for those who are "genuinely" seeking the truth even if it hurts. Sometimes it does. Jesus said that any not willing to leave Father and Mother for my sake is not worthy of me. That may mean leaving one's tradition or religious beliefs. That's what I search for. I don't want my ego fed or my opinion to be held up high. I could care less. If I'm wrong I want to know so the truth can be fullly exposed.
I want God to get the glory and him alone.

With some people I walk arm and arm and eye to eye. Some I walk arm and arm but not eye to eye. But that's ok cuz we are going to heaven together anyhow. Some I believe are going in the opposite direction. I can neither walk arm and arm or see eye to eye with them now can I? I believe from what you have written to me so far....I could be wrong....but we are neither arm in arm or eye to eye regarding spiritual things.

That's unfortunate cuz I'm not your enemy. I'm just a begger with some bread trying to help other beggers to the bread.






Reply #31 Top
Of the several meanings generally agreed upon of the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication


P.S. What do you mean by this? I think I know but would like you to explain further.

KFC

Reply #32 Top
days...") Ludwig Ott points out the many indications in Scripture that Peter was given a primary role with respect to the other Apostles: Mk 5:37, Mt 17:1, Mt 26:37, Lk 5:3, Mt 17:27, Lk 22:32, Lk 24:34, and 1 Cor 15:5 (Fund., Bk. IV, Pt. 2, Ch. 2, ยง5).


Ok, wanted to tackle this bit of info as well (if you don't mind?) since you put it out there. I think scripture is clear that Peter was a great Apostle. Ending up better than how he started and isn't that the goal of us all? It's not how we start out but how we finish that's important.

Peter was one of the 12 and defintely the spokesman for the group. He was listed first and was always part of the inner circle along with James and John. When Jesus changed his name in John 1 he looked at Peter and said his name would be changed from Simon (listener) to Peter (talker) by interpretation a stone. Also do you know that after jesus changed Simon's name to Peter he never called him by the name of Peter. He still called him Simon. Maybe that's cuz he wanted Simon to listen more. Maybe if he had the denials never would have happened....just a thought.

This is where all the fuss originated and later put with the confession of Peter in Matt 16 was a means of starting the denomination we know today as the RCC. This is not what Peter nor Jesus had in mind if you take into account ALL the scriptures. Let's look at just these above. listed

Mk 5:37 & Matt 17:1, 26:37 names all three of the inner circle., Peter, James, John Not sure how that proves Peter primary except if you mean he was mentioned first. Well someone had to be named first.

Matt 17:27-Jesus had Peter go and get a coin from a fish to pay for the tax. How does this show superiority over the other disciples? Peter was confused. Normally the royal family are exempt from the tax. Jesus, the Son of God (royalty) was not obligated to pay for the support of God's house. But to avoid offense he would pay and Jesus provided that coin thru a miracle enough to pay the tax for them both. So I suppose it could be used that because Peter's tax was paid for and not the others, maybe then he was primary. I could actually go here with you on that.....to some degree. But it's a bit of a stretch.

Luke 5:3. Jesus went into Peter's ship and preached. It said there were two ship and he went into one of them. That one just happened to be Peter's. So because of that Peter is considered a primary Apostle?

Luke 22:32-Here Jesus is saying to Peter he is praying for him to stay strong. For one thing Jesus knows the denials that are coming in which Peter will be denying him. But also we can read in Heb 7:25 which says. ".......seeing He ever lives to make intercession for them." He as our great HP is making intercesiion for all of us who desire to come to him. We see also that he's praying for us all in John 17 known as the great intercessory prayer.

Luke 24:34 & 1 Cor 15:5. These are the only two mentions of this here. These are 2 men walking along the way and are making conversation and say that Jesus did raise from the dead and appeared to Simon. But if you go to Mark 16:9 you read it much more clearly put..."Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared FIRST to Mary Magdalene out of whom he had cast seven demons." Now using this same logic Mary of Magdela must be the primary. She got to see him FIRST. Do you know who wrote Mark? John Mark and he was Peter's companion. Mark is a gospel of action. It was written thru the eyes of Peter. Interesting.....hmmmm?

Also already showed where James was the first leader of the first Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15). But did the above link show you this quote from Paul about Peter? "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed." Peter was not preaching heresy but neither was he consistently preaching the gospel of grace either. So Paul rebuked Peter here. Didn't Paul realize Peter was the first Pope? No I guess not. What did Peter say when the first gentile convert bowed at his feet? "Get up I'm just a man."

While I believe Peter was a very important Apostle one of the top 3 when you look at the WHOLE of scipture it doesn't pan out that he was the first Pope of the RCC. And this cannot be proven. It can't even be proven that he started the church in Rome. Not by scriptures or traditon. Peter was given the keys to open the doors of Christianity to the Gentiles which he did so to the house of Cornelius. But if you look.....Christ has the keys ....Rev 1. Christ is the Rock and Peter even says so himself. Read his book.

You have to go outside of scripture and go with tradition here. That's where I stop and turn back around. Because all these groups do the same thing. The only difference is the RCC started first and got a pretty big head start... I have a feeling Peter if he knows anything at all here on earth is grieving for the church.










Reply #33 Top
James Joyce would say, if you must be religious, then you're impelled to go Catholic.
Reply #34 Top
Whose James Joyce?

You can be religious about anything...I know a religious hunter, beer drinker, knitter.....etc
Reply #35 Top
Whose James Joyce?


yikes
Reply #36 Top
oops..........as I was saying.....who's James Joyce?
Reply #37 Top

James Joyce would say, if you must be religious, then you're impelled to go Catholic.

Unlike baptists, we do get to drink!

Reply #38 Top
who's James Joyce?


you're serious? joyce is a major 20th century writer (possibly THE major 20th century writer), the creator of 'ulysses', 'dubliners' (short stories, of which 'the dead' is the best known) and 'portrait of the artist as a young man' the protagonist of which is none other than the self-styled stephen dedalus. joyce uses words the way abstract artists do paint.
Reply #39 Top
you're serious? joyce is a major 20th century writer (possibly THE major 20th century writer), the creator of 'ulysses', 'dubliners' (short stories, of which 'the dead' is the best known) and 'portrait of the artist as a young man' the protagonist of which is none other than the self-styled stephen dedalus. joyce uses words the way abstract artists do paint.


he also does not know about paragraphs!
Reply #40 Top
sorry, but I never heard of him. Do you know C.S. Lewis? I think he's the major 20th century writer. In fact the movie Narnia just coming up is his creation. He was very good friends with J.R. Tolken.

And Lewis does know about paragraphs
Reply #41 Top
oh and Baptists can drink....it's the getting drunk that's a sin!!!