Catholic Caucus: How the Infallibility of the Magisterium Protects Us

CatholicExchange.com ^ | 08-10-06 | Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Ph.D

[Salvation]

by Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Ph.D.

Other Articles by Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Ph.D.

How the Infallibility of the Magisterium Protects Us

08/10/06

		If there is any dogma that sticks in the craw of non-Catholics, it is the dogma of papal infallibility. “How” ask many, “can Catholics actually believe that any human being is incapable of error?”
In This Article... By Divine Assistance What If Bishops Disagree? Special Authority of the Successor of Peter

By Divine Assistance

But what about the human authors of sacred Scripture? The Gospel narratives are quite frank about the foibles of Peter, Paul, and the rest. But all Christians believe that their writings come not from them, but were inspired by the Holy Spirit. In all that they teach us about God and His plan for our salvation, they are therefore “inerrant.”

The pope and bishops of the Catholic Church are no less human than the Aapostles and evangelists. Left to themselves, they can make their share of mistakes. But in their capacity as apostolic teachers, they are not left to themselves. They receive divine assistance much like Peter received at Caesarea Philippi when he blurted out that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God (Mt 16:16-17).

So the Church believes that when the bishops of the world, in the course of their ordinary teaching and preaching, together present a doctrine to God’s people as something revealed by God, they teach this dogma infallibly by virtue of the ordinary, universal Magisterium.

What If Bishops Disagree?

But sometimes it is hard to precisely identify what all bishops of the world agree upon in their daily teaching. So when serious doctrinal disputes arose in the early Church, councils of bishops gathered to settle things.

These special councils were called “ecumenical” from the Greek word for “household.” They dealt with matters pertaining to the whole household of the faith and represented all the bishops of the world. Hence their judgments, once confirmed by the pope, were considered binding on the whole Christian family. Some of their pronouncements had to do with discipline, and so are not binding on all generations. Some of their teaching was doctrinal, pertaining to faith and morals, but was presented in an ordinary way. But sometimes the council fathers engaged the fullness of their apostolic authority and issued solemn dogmatic definitions in which they fundamentally guaranteed that a certain truth is revealed by God. They usually make crystal clear their intent to define a dogma by strongly condemning contradictory teachings and noting that those who hold such heretical opinions have put themselves outside the Church.

From about the 9th century, we can document a widespread belief that dogmatic decrees by ecumenical councils are infallible in light of the assistance given to the council fathers by the Holy Spirit (see Acts 15:28).

Special Authority of the Successor of Peter

But what if a council could not be called in time to respond to a crisis? Would it remain up for grabs how we should interpret the Scriptures and identify the authentic apostolic Tradition?

Medieval theologians said no. They saw the special assistance given to Peter by the Spirit in Matthew 16:16. They noted the extraordinary track record of the popes of the first millennium in upholding orthodoxy even when many of the great bishops and patriarchs from around the world fell into heresy. Many concluded that the successor of Peter is assisted by the Spirit in a particular way. If he should teach ex cathedra (literally “from the chair” of Peter), engaging the fullness of his apostolic teaching authority on a matter pertaining to faith and morals, his judgment is indeed infallible. From about the 12th century this became a widespread opinion and was defined as dogma by the First Vatican Council in 1870.

Infallibility, then, is not a burden, but a necessary gift, indeed a charism of the Holy Spirit. Without it, the promise made by Christ at Caesarea Philippi could not be kept. Remember, He guaranteed that the jaws of death would not prevail against His Church. But if the Church had no sure way to locate the truth, the jaws of death would be free to gobble up many and shatter the remaining flock into a million pieces.


Dr. D'Ambrosio studied under Avery Cardinal Dulles for his Ph.D. in historical theology and taught for many years at the University of Dallas. He now directs www.crossroadsinitiative.com, which offers Catholic resources for RCIA, adult faith formation, and teens, with a special emphasis on the Year of the Eucharist, the Theology of the Body, the early Church Fathers, and the sacrament of confirmation.

(This article originally appeared in Our Sunday Visitor and is used by permission of the author.)

[Iscool]

Therefore, a priest who introduces, mandates, or imposes the holding of hands during the Lord’s Prayer is violating the norms set by the Church.

And why was this written??? Don't tell me it was common for priests to hold hands during the service...

[Iscool]

We must have different Bibles because in mine, God worked through Moses and the prophets and even the SINNER David, whose line Jesus descended from. So from your perspective who bore Jesus?

After they were dead??? Nope...Not only did no one bow and pray to Moses or David, Peter wouldn't allow anyone to bow before him...

[Iscool]

Acts 20:28 - the apostles are shepherds and guardians appointed by the Holy Spirit

This verse references this verse. Act 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

Your bible says 'ancients' as opposed to elders...It is NOT a reference to 'Apostles'...And these elders that were shepherds that were appointed by the Holy Spirit were appointed in ALL the churches...

They were under the authority of Paul, NOT Peter...The apostles did not cross over into another's jurisdiction...And Paul was not under the authority of Peter...Paul was the apostle for the gentile church...

[FJ290]

And why was this written??? Don't tell me it was common for priests to hold hands during the service...

Are you jesting? I can't tell because you didn't have a lol or smile emoticon next to your statement. If you are serious, this has nothing to do with priests holding hands during the Our Father. It has to do with the laity holding hands during the prayer and the priest encouraging it.

[Bubble Girl]

And to think I managed to blank this all out of my memory once I got out of Catholic School..

Our Lady Of Perpetual Guilt

[FJ290]

Paul was the apostle for the gentile church...

St. Peter was the first to baptize a Gentile, not St. Paul. And bear in mind this also:

"And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God MADE CHOICE among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Seems that God did make choice among them and He chose St. Peter originally.

[conservatative strategery]

Great post, brother. All you can do is preach the truth in love, and pray that they may be given eyes to see.

[Religion Moderator]

The Catholic Caucus is a protected church-like thread - challenges to doctrine are not allowed on such threads.

Devotional threads, prayer threads and other church-like threads are likewise protected from challenges - much like a church with its doors closed, the assembly shall not be disturbed.

Keep all challenges to the "open" town-square type threads - news, theology, etc.

[Iscool]

Seems that God did make choice among them and He chose St. Peter originally.

But Peter couldn't get it right all the time...And we all know that after that, Paul was assigned to the Gentiles while Peter was given the Jews for his ministry...

[Iscool]

My apologies to you and the Catholics...I'll pay better attention...

[dsc]

"Our Lady Of Perpetual Guilt"

Lepers lose the ability to feel pain. Therefore, scratches fester, they get in a bad way, and eventually they lose limbs.

Pain is what tells us we have a physical problem we need to address.

Guilt is the spiritual analogue.

[Salvation]

Dn't men write the Bible? I bet you believe in those men's writings? Your argument doesn't hold water.

[Salvation]

LOL!

[Salvation]

Haven't you ever asked anyone to pray for you? That's what we ask Mary to do for us. We ask her to pray for us.

[Salvation]

**You really need to read the Bible fro what it says and not cherry pick verses, out of context to suit Catholicism.**

But the Bible was written by the Jews and the early Catholics. Those celebrating the Holy Eucharist as Christ had instructed them to do "in memory of me" at the Last Supper.

You need to get those facts straight first. Who is giving you this Catholic bashing stuff, anyway?

[Salvation]

Sounds like unrealistic guilt to me. LOL!

[Bubble Girl]

Sounds like unrealistic guilt to me. LOL!

I guess. I no longer feel guilty for not going to Church. And that's a good thing!

:D

[dsc]

"I guess. I no longer feel guilty for not going to Church. And that's a good thing! "

No, that's a bad thing. Our Lord said "Do this in memory of me."

He didn't go on to say, "Or not. Whatever."

[NYer]

But Peter couldn't get it right all the time...And we all know that after that, Paul was assigned to the Gentiles while Peter was given the Jews for his ministry...

One compelling biblical fact that points clearly to Simon Peter’s primacy among the 12 Apostles and his importance and centrality to the drama of Christ’s earthly ministry, is that he is mentioned by name (e.g. Simon, Peter, Cephas, Kephas, etc.) 195 times in the course of the New Testament. The next most often-mentioned Apostle is St. John, who is mentioned a mere 29 times. After John, in descending order, the frequency of the other Apostles being mentioned by name trails off rapidly.

In Acts 10, Simon Peter receives a special revelation from God that Gentiles are to be welcomed into the Church without having to follow Jewish Kosher food restrictiions or undergo circumcision. In Acts 11, he acts in the name of the Church in welcoming the first Gentile converts to be received according to this new revelation.

But, as a Sola Scriptura christian, you already know this.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER

[nmh]

"But the Bible was written by the Jews and the early Catholics. Those celebrating the Holy Eucharist as Christ had instructed them to do "in memory of me" at the Last Supper."

It was not written by "Catholics". And no I don't engage in imaginary cannibalism. Literally eating flesh and drinking blood is taboo. It's SYMPBOLIC. You are not to literally imagine you are consuming His body.

Pointing out truth is not "bashing".