Cristiandad (2005), ¿Puede el Papa Caer en Error o Herejía? [On-line], URL: http://es.catholic.net/conocetufe/358/1780/articulo.php?id=3324.
Keating, Kart (no date), La Infalibilidad Papal [On-line], URL: http://apologetica.org/infalibilidad-keating.htm.
Lacueva, Francisco (1984), Nuevo Testamento Interlineal Griego-Español (CLIE, Villadecavalls, Barcelona, España).
Logos (1996), Llamado de Atención Sobre la Infalibilidad [On-line], URL: http://www.sjsocial.org/logos/logos6.htm.
Lumen Gentium (1964), Dogmatic Constitution of the Church [On-line], URL: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/ vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html.
Nostra Aetate (1965), Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions [On-line], URL: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/ vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html.
Pinedo, Moisés (2005), The Pope, the Papacy, and the Bible [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2724.
Pivarunas, Mark A. (1996),La Infalibilidad de la Iglesia Católica [On-line], URL: http://www.cmri.org/font-96prog5.html.
SCTJM (1999a), Ex Cathedra, Tres Condiciones Deben Reunirse Para que una Definición Pontificia Sea Ex Cathedra [On-line], URL: http://www.corazones.org/diccionario/excathedra.htm.
SCTJM (1999b), Infalibilidad [On-line], URL: http://www.corazones.org/diccionario/infalibilidad.htm#Infalibilidad%20Episcopa.
Vatican I (1869a), Canon On Revelation [On-line], URL: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#5.
Vatican I (1869b), First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ [On-line], URL: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#6.
Vine, W.E. (1999), Diccionario Expositivo de Palabras del Antiguo y Nuevo Testamento Exhaustivo, (Colombia, Editorial Caribe, Inc.).
ping
I am a Catholic and I think the idea of papal infallibility is complete crock of crap. And so do many other Catholics for that matter. Not all of us are mindless automatons marching mindlessly in lockstep with every whim that comes out of the Vatican these days. And some of us do actually read the Bible and view that as our primary source as the Word of God. Popes are human beings and are therefore subject to sin an error just like the rest of us mere mortals.
“by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed”
Peter was a prime example of fallibility.
Christ’s sacrifice was needed precisely because _all_ men are fallible. Strange that _one_ denomination, on its own say-so, carves out infallibility for its own purposes.
Seems teachings on humility should be considered.
The author clearly did not bother to look at the Greek, which clearly distinguishes between "you (plural)," for whom Satan has asked "to sift like wheat," and "you (singular)" for whom "I have prayed ... that you should strengthen your brethren". The passage is clearly assigning a task and a prerogative to Peter. It's what the Greek says.
A few paragraphs later, his argument amounts to complaining that the Church doesn't claim for the Pope the same unrestricted infallibility that Jesus had, so it can't claim any infallibility at all. Logical? Not.
To give the proper background on this; the Pope has spoken Ex Cathedra only twice in the past 200+ years. The last time was in 1950 regarding the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The author deceitfully implies that the three conditions of papal infallibility were only added after the Catholic church was sent reeling backwards from people pointing out papal error. That’s nonsense. Why cite a 1999 work, when it merely restates what was declared in Vatican I?
Specifically, regarding the failures of Peter: Jesus tells Peter that he WILL receive authority, not that he HAS. That authority was given to him when he reconciled with Jesus after the Resurrection. Jesus tells Peter, “Shepherd my sheep.”
Further errors are abundant: “Heresy” means that someone within the faith deviates from it. Those outside the Catholic Church are not called “heretics,” by the Church but “schismatics,” (if they still belong to an apostolic church), “apostates,” (if they have abandoned the faith), or simply the unconverted. So the criticism of Vatican II’s teaching on other religions is absurd: the punishment for heresy cited in Vatican 1 is “anathema.” That is, they are excluded from the Catholic Church. The passage from Vatican II relates to people who are already outside the Catholic Church in the first place!
Couldn’t someone still interpret that passage from Vatican II as at least being the heresy of indifferentism? (That is, the heresy of believing that it doesn’t matter what religion someone is.) It’s funny RnMomof7’s source doesn’t mention this passage:
“Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, [this Council] teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”
So, what we learn from Vatican II is that the Catholic Church respects that these religions may offer a “reflection” of certain elements of the Church’s truth, but that such a reflection of the truth is inadequate for salvation.