Infallible Infallibility

Standing On My Head ^ | February 17, 2009 | Fr Dwight Longenecker

[NYer]

I am reading a conversion story and apologetical book called An Invitation Heeded published at the end of the 1800s with a view to editing it for re-publication by the Coming Home Network. In the chapter on infallibility the author makes the very good point that rather than the Catholic Church's stance on infallibility being nonsensical, it is the churches who deny infallibility that are absurd.

The essential Protestant position is, "Our church is merely a human institution. It is not infallible." And yet they demand allegiance of the faithful to the beliefs and moral teachings of their church. But if their church, by their own insistence, is fallible how can they demand obedience and loyalty to their teachings? There is a logical hiccup here of enormous magnitude.

"Ah!" the Protestant will object, "Our church is fallible, but the Holy Scriptures are not, and it is the Holy Scriptures in which we place our confidence--not in the traditions of men." Of course, this begs the question because Protestants of every stripe--from radical Episcopalians with their Mother Goddess worship and homosexual marriage to mainstream Evangelicals to Jehovah's Witnesses all claim that their beliefs and practices are derived from and at least consistent with Scripture.

In fact, while denying that their leaders are infallible, every religion must act as if they are infallible, otherwise their religion would cease to function. Whenever Bob the Baptist steps through his church door he functions on the basic assumption that his pastor does not teach error in the matter of faith and morals. (this is the definition of infallibility) Likewise, Esther the Episcopalian and Martin the Methodist and Frank the Four Square Apostolic Church of the Redeemed of the Fourth Degree-ist all assume that their pastors teach without error--otherwise their religion wouldn't work. They have to assume infallibility in practice, even if they deny it in theory.

The fact of the matter is, all religions function on the assumption that their church leader is infallible. Catholics are just the only ones who dare to make the claim, and how can Catholics make such an audacious claim?

There are only three options: 1) they are insane and deluded 2) they are liars 3) It's true.

[Campion]

We don't believe that any mortal man is infallible.

You mean Paul wasn't preserved from error when he was writing Romans?

[armydoc]

You mean Paul wasn't preserved from error when he was writing Romans?

Of course he was. My statement obviously deals with people today (hence the "is"), not the special past circumstance of the recording of God-inspired scripture prior to the closing of the Canon.

[reagandemocrat]

Did I read this right— You’re swimming the Tiber?

wow. At Easter Vigil?

[trad_anglican]

Yes and Yes.

[Mr. Lucky]

There may be a boat load of Protestant clergy who are weak in their faith, just as there, doubtless, are a boat load of Roman Catholic clergy with that same weakness; but it doesn't stem from the fallibility of Scripture.

In a nutshell, the orthodox Protestant belief is that Scripture is infallible and any doctrine which is in conflict with Scripture is fallible. That doesn't require all Christians to share all doctrine, merely that doctrine which is in conflict with Scripture be rejected.

[D-fendr]

>>>That doesn’t require all Christians to share all doctrine, merely that doctrine which is in conflict with Scripture be rejected.

But, I think that statement contradicts itself, doesn’t it? At the least it would require agreement on that “which is in conflict with Scripture”.

[D-fendr]

I’m thinking along the lines of the article when it says: “Protestants of every stripe—from radical Episcopalians with their Mother Goddess worship and homosexual marriage to mainstream Evangelicals to Jehovah’s Witnesses all claim that their beliefs and practices are derived from and at least consistent with Scripture.”

[Theo]

Have you ever wondered why Jesus told Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man” (Matthew 16:23)?

Note that that is just a few verses AFTER Jesus said, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 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.”

So Peter, supposedly the first Pope, was not infallible in areas of doctrine, even AFTER his supposed commission as such.

[D-fendr]

Then, I guess Jesus made a mistake in building His Church and giving the keys.

[D-fendr]

Or He really did build a Church which he gates of hell shall not prevail against.

[Theo]

Nope, Jesus has never made a single mistake.

We, however, ARE mistaken to think that Peter was infallible in areas of doctrine.

[Theo]

No, Jesus spoke the truth.

It’s our interpretation of what He said that is faulty.

If we take Him at His word, then the Roman Catholic Church has it wrong.

[D-fendr]

I think your statements contradict themselves or at least Jesus’ statements.

[D-fendr]

If we take Him at His Word:

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 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.”

The Church has it right. Even though you disagree. Perhaps you are illustrating your fallibility here?

:)

[D-fendr]

BTW, I think you misunderstand papal infallibility. It does not apply to Peter’s statement that Jesus rebukes him for.

If Jesus could not trust Peter with the keys, as you seem to be implying, then He made a mistake in doing so.

[netmilsmom]

>>So Peter, supposedly the first Pope, was not infallible in areas of doctrine, even AFTER his supposed commission as such.<<

Silly, Jesus had to died to form the church. He hadn’t died yet or his Earthly body wouldn’t have talked to Peter.

JPII died and B16 became Pope. I hope this helps you understand.

[Mr. Lucky]

An heretical claim by a Protestant should be entitled to no more serious deference than, say, an heretical claim by Pope Honorius.

[Theo]

The “keys” refer to the gospel, which was indeed given to Peter, as well as to all of Jesus’ followers.

Note the phrase that unpacks the “keys of the kingdom” phrase: “... and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

That clarifying phrase is also found in Matthew 18:18. When Jesus says this to ALL his disciples.

Also, consider Galatians 2, where Paul rebukes Peter (supposedly the first Pope) for his doctrinal errors. Whose doctrine is correct — Paul, or Peter? If you say “Paul,” then you are saying that the supposed first Pope’s doctrine was incorrect, thereby proving that “Popes” are indeed fallible in the area of doctrine.

This is challenging information, D-fendr. I urge you to study the Scriptures yourself.

[Theo]

Please see my comment #38, specifically the part where I reference Galatians 2, where Paul and Peter differ on doctrine.

As I wrote there, this is challenging information, which may shake your worldview. Was Paul indeed saying that Peter’s doctrine was incorrect?

[D-fendr]

That’s a creative interpretation of “keys” that you have. Almost as though one had no idea of what keys and kingdom meant.

You are correct though in applying it to the Apostolic Church - as we say in the Apostles Creed.

If you’re talking about the Jerusalem Council, then you might agree that the Church got it right - and Jesus got it right in entrusting it to the Apostles.

>>>I urge you to study the Scriptures yourself.

Oh, I do. I’m just not quite that creative with them. :)

Thanks for your reply.