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.

[netmilsmom]

>>And it seems history reveals that many of those scholars spent most of their time trying to figure out how to understand and apply Holy Scripture in the view of secular philosophy...<<

YOUR history from YOUR angle.

I like my Doctor to constantly study his profession, my Dentist to constantly study his profession and my teachers to study their subjects and constantly look at it from different angles.

That’s your right to go it on your own. Suits me. Doesn’t matter to me at all. But, to look at me and say that I DON’T need someone to help interpret scripture is silly. You have no clue of my intelligence. I make a great batch of Chocolate Chip cookies but I am no scholar.

[Theo]

You appear not to be as aware of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as I am. To help you understand it, I turn to where it was defined by the First Vatical Council in 1870:

“We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.”

Is that helpful?

FWIW, St. Augustine rejected an interpretation of Matthew 16:18 as saying that The Church was built upon Peter. He rightly recognized that Jesus was affirming that The Church was built upon Jesus Himself; the “rock” was Christ, not Peter.

Peter was a great man. He was often the first to bring the gospel to those who hadn’t heard it. He boldly preached Christ, whom he recognized as “the cornerstone” of the Christian faith. The thing is, the Church wasn’t built upon him, and he wasn’t the first Pope.

I conclude with the words of Paul, in 1 Cor. 1:12: “... each one of you says, I follow Paul, or I follow Apollos, or I follow Cephas [Peter], or I follow Christ.” You’re free to follow Peter and the Popes, Mad Dawg. As for me, I’ll follow Christ.

[Iscool]

It's interesting when folks call what they do not understand "doublespeak."

I understood what you were saying...You were trying to avoid confirming or denying that Heaven was a real place or a state of mind...

But no matter...Your pope already answered the question...

[Iscool]

I make a great batch of Chocolate Chip cookies but I am no scholar.

You got it all wrong...And I'm sure your cookies are great...

Jesus didn't provide the scripture for 'scholars'...He provided the scriptures for the average people...

There is not a single verse in the scriptures that indicate the more educated a person is, the more he'll know of the scriptures...Quite the contrary...Do you know how one comes to understand the scriptures???

Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures,

No one, scholar or not, can understand the scriptures unless Jesus opens their understanding...

And then Jesus says you won't get anything that tough or difficult till you get the easy stuff first...You can't handle the meat til you get the milk that Jesus provides...That includes the 'scholars' as well...

[FourtySeven]

There is not a single verse in the scriptures that indicate the more educated a person is, the more he'll know of the scriptures...

2 Pet 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Emphasis added.

Luke 24:45 is an interesting verse. It's Christ's words to some of his disciples as they were traveling on the road to Emmaus. Christ was talking (teaching) his disciples how the Scriptures (obviously OT at that point) were/do speak of Him. That is, how His revelation was "hidden" there but "now" revealed.

The point is of course that this re-enforces the message of 2 Pet 3:16. Just as his disciples got it wrong when they read their Scriptures to predict the coming Messiah would be a political figure, one to immediately re-establish the Israeli state's dominance in the world, the passage from St. Peter's second epistle warns us that without proper instruction, without proper "education", the Scripture can be (and are) "twisted" to be unreadable.

Certainly it's possible that Jesus Himself directly teaches us even today what the Scriptures mean (say) (which is what you may reply to me with). But this doesn't negate the possibility that He can *also* use *other people* to teach us today. After all, that's why He left us "another comforter" in the first place. To keep us on the right path. Is it unacceptable to believe that His Holy Spirit uses other people to educate us, to keep us from twisting Scripture "to our own destruction"?

In closing I'd say this: If it's impossible to believe that the Holy Spirit doesn't use other people to teach us (educate us) about His Word, then what one has done by saying such is stated, "I don't believe the Holy Spirit inhabits anyone for the purposes of education other than me". A lofty self-description indeed; such a belief is greater than the described role of even the Pope.

[Mad Dawg]

You were trying to avoid confirming or denying that Heaven was a real place or a state of mind...

Mind reading, false, and defamatory.

For the record, I assert that Heaven is not merely a state of the human mind. The quote from a man who is no longer my pope, as you falsely characterize him, does not assert that heaven is merely a state of the human mind.

Of course, what "mind" signifies is not a question I would want to raise having seen what happens to attempts at reasonable discussion.

I do note that I responded to you, took what you said at face value, and addressed your contention that we teach an identity between heaven and the Church as she now is. That contention of yours was the beginning of the exchange. But you rapidly changed the subject, making me and my motives the subject, while I was asking for an explanation (not a series of instances) of what you meant by "place", "real" and "physical", which were terms you used in making your assertion.

You did not address the distinction I pointed out which showed how the Pope was not making an identity between heaven and the Church as she now is. What you did do was ask me if I wrote some of the Harry Potter books and characterize what I wrote as doublespeak.

Then you claimed to read my mind and reasserted your original contention without additional argument, making no progress in demonstrating the truth of the contention.

This confirms my already considered opinion that some Protestants have little idea what they mean by the words they use and have little notion of meaningful conversation as distinct from debate, and that they would rather engage in pretending to disprove something nobody thinks than in the pursuit of the truth.

I am learning what Isaiah means when he writes of people taking refuge in lies, and learning to leave such people to God's mercy, since any activity which might lead to a mutual uncovering or discernment of some truth is promptly buried in mounds of personal attacks and sophistries.

[Religion Moderator]

You were trying to

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[netmilsmom]

Yet, when I studied scripture, I got it wrong.

I looked at Romans 9:18
18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

And I saw a very Muslim point of view. That I can do everything right and Our Lord could condemn me anyway.

I prayed and begged for the answer. For God to show me what this meant and I kept coming to the same conclusion (mind you, this was in my “I was only born Catholic” days)

I was wrong. No amount of prayer set me right. Sorry FRiend, while I trust that you are smart enough to get it all, I’m not. However, with wisdom comes understanding. I know that I’m not smart enough. I go to those who are.

[Mad Dawg]

Nice catch! Good verse to meditate on. Thanks.

[FourtySeven]

You’re welcome and thank you for the compliment. God bless you.

[Mad Dawg]

Well, since you follow Him who is the truth, can you explain, patiently as to one not so wise as you, how the definition from Vatican I pertains in any way to Peter's wimping out in Antioch?

Your understanding of the declaration seems to vary from that of the current pope who said he could err in a book about Jesus and the New Testament.

So we have one example, Peter, of a pope who was timid and wavering. And we have another example of a pope who says he may be wrong about what he writes about what would seem to be issues related to faith.

And we have your quoting of the oft-quoted definition of Infallibility which seems to me (and, I would venture to guess, to most Catholics who have thought about these three matters) to have nothing whatsoever to do with Peter at Antioch, a story which at least one or two of the participants at Vatican I might have heard of.

Are you asking me to think that you understand the doctrine better than Pope Benedict XVI? Surely you can offer me some explanation to accompany this proposition to make it easier for me to understand and to agree with you.

If it's all the same to you, I'd like to stick with the question of the statement from Vatican I before going to the ins and outs of the "rock" and the following of this or that person. I find that if I concentrate on one task at a time I do better.

[netmilsmom]

Thank you. That says it all for me.

I like to think that Our Lord put me on this Earth to be a good servant. I’m not really sure that he put me here with a ton of wisdom, just the wisdom to know that I am not that wise.

[FourtySeven]

You’re welcome and Amen. We should all pray for humility every day.

[Mad Dawg]

Okay. Suddenly I'm thinking of the Abbot and Costello scene where Lou Costello asks a cop if he isn't a pubic servant. The cops snarls,"SURE!" so Lou says, "Get me a glass of water."

And of course the cop takes a step to comply before he realizes that .....

I'm a sick man.

[Mad Dawg]

I would just like to cover my embarrassment by blaming an inadequate spell check for not distinguishing between pubLic and pubic. WHY didn't it know what I MEANT? In the immortal words of Han Solo, "It's not my FAULT!"

I will now go kill myself. Don't worry, I'll only kill myself a little. It's called humiliation, and I understand it's supposed to be good for one.

[netmilsmom]

Oh no.....you can’t do that.
Even a little. We need you here.

[colorcountry]

LOL -

I once sent out several resumes in hope of landing a job since I had experience in ‘pubic’ relations, and oral communications.

Oh my goodness - talk about being humiliated. One of my prospective employees pointed it out to me. Needless to say I wasn’t hired by ANY of those companies.

I died a little that day too.

[Mad Dawg]

Well, I wouldn’t want to disappoint my pubic, uh, public, public, I said public.

[Mad Dawg]

Heide Fleisch on line one!

[netmilsmom]

LOL!