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.

[D-fendr]

I would agree, but which Council of the Protestants will decree the Protestant heretic a heretic?

Doesn’t it all resolve to a question of whose authority?

[Theo]

It’s really not a “creative” interpretation, D-fendr. This is from my ESV Study Bible:

“Peter is given the authority to admit entrance into the kingdom through preaching the gospel, an authority that is subsequently granted to all who are called to proclaim the gospel. (Note the contrast with the scribes and Pharisees, who shut the kingdom in people’s faces, neither entering themselves nor allowing others to enter). In Acts, Peter is the apostle who first preaches the message of the kingdom to the Jews at Pentecost, to the Samaritans, and to the Gentiles.”

Again, my perspective is not unique or creative, but consistent with what many scholars hold, including those who contributed to the ESV Study Bible.

[Mr. Lucky]

Rather than a Council, Scripture as it's actually written provides reproach. II Timothy 3:16 comes to mind.

[D-fendr]

But scripture does not “reproach”, people do.

They may use scripture - rightly or wrongly - to do so; but, scripture on its own does no reproaching or approving.

[D-fendr]

At the risk of sounding too Protestant: I’ll take Jesus’ plain meaning over the doctrines of ESV (men).

:)

[D-fendr]

IIRC, your Church as an example has the power to reproach and remove teaching authority for its priests, doesn’t it?

[Mr. Lucky]

Look, we’re arguing past each other. No Council ever reproached Alexander VI; that he was not a Godly man was obvious. The same holds with any Protestant who claims to worship the Earth Goddess.

[D-fendr]

I’m sorry, I was referring to Pope Honorius. My apologies..

[Mad Dawg]

Well, God bless you. I swam in 1994 and am increasingly grateful for it.

[Mr. Lucky]

My denomination, is doctrinally confessional and politically congregational. A "rebuke", even of clergy, is seldom public and most often is administered at the congregational level. A rebuke would not lead to a removal from the clergy, which is administered at the synodical level, unless the clergyman was unrepentant or heretical. The heresy is not determined by a church council, however, but by reference to the confession (most often called the Book of Concord).

Doesn't help much, does it.

[D-fendr]

No, that is helpful. I think if we look closely most churches do empower someone or some group with the authority to decide what is taught, and what cannot be taught.

I think that’s one point of the article, that all (or most) churches must rely on some confidence in their getting the scriptures and their interpretation and doctrines correct.

Thanks for your reply.

BTW, I am thinking you are Lutheran. Am I correct?

[Mad Dawg]

Yes to any number of clerics having faith under assault. And, of course I get the 2 sides of (a)you gotta believe what's IN Scripture and (b) you don't gotta believe what is not or what can't be proved thereby. (See, just for fun, Article VI of the "Article of Religion.")

What I was trying to say was that the problem of "the Church can err," is greater for the kind of hybrid position of some Anglicans than for out and out Protestants.

While, clearly, I disagree with Protestants about some things,, that doesn't mean I don't see the admirable (if not perfect) internal consistency of some of them.

[Mr. Lucky]

Thanks for your cogent post.

[Mr. Lucky]

I am thinking you are Lutheran, am I correct?

Correct? You're infallible.

[D-fendr]

LOL!

Not to the ladies...

[vladimir998]

You are seriously mistaken.

You wrote:

“Have you ever wondered why Jesus told Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!”

Nope. It was plain as day why.

“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...”

Yep, it is.

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

No. 1) There was no “commissioning” yet. The text clearly promises it is a future event. Just as John 1:42 was in the future at the beginning of John’s gospel too.
2) No doctrine was involved. Peter was rebuked for his thickheadedness, his lack of understanding, not for being fallible over a doctrine. 3) And since Peter was not yet left as head of the Church after the Ascension there was no infallibility involved anyway.

It amazes me how Protestants always attack infallibility but can’t even get the basics right about what it IS.

[Theo]

Did you see my earlier comments about Galatians 2, where Paul corrects Peter on his misguided doctrine?

And don’t lecture me about “infallibility.” I know very well what it is. Peter was NOT infallible, even after he supposedly became the first Pope. Indeed, he was neither recognized as the primarily leader in the early church, nor as infallible in the area of doctrine. Those ideas sprouted later, and are false.’

Yes, I am a Protestant. I protest against the false doctrines introduced by Rome, and promote the true doctrines of Scripture. May Christ alone be glorified and honored.

[conservonator]

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

No. The keys were given to Peter alone, the other Apostles were given the power to bind and loose but not the keys. The keys symbolize real authority see Isaiah 22:22. Christ was preparing His Apostles to continue his work on earth; to take to his sheep the Gospel, to feed and teach. Peters particular and singular position within the fraternity of the Apostles is again stressed in John 21:15-17

Paul rebuked Peter for being weak, not for teaching false dogma. Peter was a weak and sinful man; quick to anger and slow to catch on and yet Christ chose him to lead His Church. This gives hope to we who are weak, sinful and in dire need of correction.

Your suggestion to study scripture is laudable, but ask your self this: why do I study Scripture? Is it to mine for the errors of other or is it to draw closer to the living Word? Keep always in mind the Ethiopian eunuch and his need for a guide.

[Theo]

May Christ increase. May Rome decrease.

Nothing more to add here.

[D-fendr]

And don’t lecture me about “infallibility.”

Yet in this post you continue to show your mistaken knowledge of it.

At the very least know what it is before you criticize it.