Infallibility

Christ gave to Simon Peter and his successors, the Keys to the Kingdom and the power of binding and loosing. To the Popes was given the authority to teach. To them, in this regard, was given the charism of infallibility. "Infallibility" is not "impeccability" -- the inability to sin. Catholics do not believe that Popes are sinless and never err. Infallibility is simply a gift that is expressed in very specific ways, limited by Sacred Deposit of Faith -- Tradition, Scripture, and the unanimous writings of the early Fathers. As put by Vatican I:

The Pope may explain doctrines more fully, he may go more deeply into them, he can extrapolate from moral principles to shed light on new situations that arise, but he cannot contradict what has been handed down by Christ and the Apostles and still claim infallibility for that teaching.

Infallibility

Protestants believe the first Pope possessed the charism of infallibility.

Now, they might not believe that Peter was the first Pope (which he was), but they believe that his Epistles are infallible. They also believe that Luke, Matthew, Mark, Paul, Jude and John wrote infallibly. They believe that Moses "was infallible," too. And Hosea, Micah, Nehemiah, Isaiah, David, Solomon, Zechariah -- any Patriarch, Prophet, Apostle, or Evangelist who wrote a Bibilical Book is deemed by Protestants to be infallible.

But somehow they see things as having changed, and the idea of the gift of infallibility being given to man is laughed off as "Popish superstition" at best, and as "Romish sacrilege" at worst.

Why they believe this, when since Israel's origins God has always provided authoritative leaders, I don't know. From Abraham to Jacob to Moses to David to Solomon, et. al., throughout the thousands and thousands of years of Israel's existence, God gave Israel earthly authority. But Protestants see this authority as having abruptly ended when the Old Testament Covenant was fulfilled and Israel's King of Kings took on flesh.

Did that earthly authorty pass away? If not, where did that authority pass on to?

The authority passed to Peter and to the priests of the New Covenant.

"But we don't believe that Moses and Jacob and David were perfect! Look at David -- he committed adultery! Just because they wrote infallible books doesn't mean they were perfect!"

Precisely. And Catholics don't believe that Popes are perfect and can't sin or that every word a Pope mutters is infallible. When David whored around, he sinned. When Solomon prayed to pagan gods, he sinned. When Peter denied Christ three times, he sinned. When Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran or failed to deal with heretic, Modernist Bishops and homosexualist priests, he sinned. Impeccability is not a part of the deal -- but all of these sinners had/have the charism of infallibility.

How Infallibility Works

The Authentic (i.e. "authoritative") Magisterium of the Church -- i.e., the teaching office of the Church exercised by proper authority -- has different levels of infallibility:

In addition to Magisterium, the Pope can, of course, simply act as a private person and offer his personal opinions on anything from current events to sports to food to movies. These may be of interest to us Catholics, who tend to sensibly love -- or at least respect the office of -- the Holy Father, but they are not "Church teaching" in any way. In the same way, a Council may be called that is pastoral and not dogmatic in nature (such as Vatican II).

Now, some Catholics forget the second level of the Magisterium, the "Ordinary Infallible Magisterium." They forget the Sacred Deposit of Faith, the unanimous agreement of the early Christian Fathers, and Sacred Tradition. These "Catholics" are the "liberal Catholics" or "modernist Catholics" you hear so much from in the media. They are the ones who root for the ordination of women, the eradication of the Christian view of homosexuality, etc. These are the well-organized, well-funded loudmouth "Catholics" who eat away at the Church's teachings and have become well-entrenched in various dioceses.

Another type of Catholic forgets about that third level of teaching that is not infallible at all. Any time the Pope teaches, he must be heard, his authority given respect, and the teaching given the benefit of the doubt because it comes from the Vicar of Christ. But if it contradicts prior infallible Magisterium, it is not infallible -- and it must not be obeyed if it proves harmful to the faith. Catholics who forget this level of Magisterium try very hard to be "orthodox" by being obedient, but they often have a false sense of obedience -- an obedience that sometimes borders on a pre-conscious papolatry ("pope worship"), though, of course, they know better and know that "worshipping the Pope" would be a terrible sin. They usually have a very healthy sensus catholicus, a desire for traditional Catholicism, and a virtuous patience, but they simply attribute to the Pope authority he does not have and they truly need to come to a better understanding of what the Magisterium is. These Catholics are often called "neo-conservatives," "conservatives," or "neo-Catholics" (they often think of and refer to themselves as "traditional Catholics" though they are not). You will see these otherwise wonderful Catholics tying themselves into knots trying to defend some of the novelties that followed Vatican II, or sweating bullets making excuses for some of the Holy Father's more scandalous actions (e.g., "ecumenical" services that include praying with Animists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Protestants; allowing altar girls and "Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers", etc.), failures to act (e.g., lack of discipline given to Bishops), and opinions (e.g., support for the anti-subsidiarity, anti-life, anti-Christ United Nations).

Their desire to protect the Holy Father is understandable -- and laudable! -- especially since the papacy has been attacked so unfairly since the Protestant Rebellion and the ensuing secular revolution, most often with outrageous lies. But these Catholics have to wake up, study a bit, and defend true Catholic teaching as it has been known for 2,000 years.

How to recognize what is and isn't infallible

If it has always been taught by the Church as a matter of faith or morals, it is infallible. If it is a solemn definition, it is infallible.

Ex., you are reading two Encyclicals. The first Encyclical reads:

In this document, the only parts which would be infallible would be the lines "Jesus Christ is God" and "women may not be ordained to the priesthood" because these have always been taught. This is teaching at the level of the Universal Magisterium, which is infallible.

The second Encyclical reads:

Notice the explicit "we define" here? Notice that it is addressed to "anyone," not just to members of the Latin Church or of the Eastern Churches, etc.? Notice the penalty in place for non-acceptance of what is being said (if you don't believe this, you have fallen away from the Catholic Faith)? By these marks, you can know that infallible teaching is being expressed.

In this document, X, Y, and Z are infallible, but not "the red dog runs at night." This is teaching at the level of the Extraordinary (or Solemn) Magisterium, which is also infallible and is to be accepted "de fide." (Note: Protestants and uneducated Catholics who ask blankly, "Is Enclyclical X infallible?" need to recognize that a 100-page Encyclical may be written that is not infallible in any way, or has 10 paragraphs that are infallible, or 1 sentence that is infallible, etc.). This sort of exercise of the Solemn Magisterium is very rare, but very necessary when clarity is needed over a teaching that has always been taught, but whose details haven't been strictly defined.

All other teachings are owed obedience as long as they do not lead to a loss of Faith, harm the Church, impede the salvation of souls, lead to an evil, etc.

Summary:

How the teachings are passed down

In addition to the above authoritative excercises of the Magisterium is "ecclesiastical tradition." Ecclesiastical tradition is the body of disciplines and practices which Christ's Church has ordained to be the manner in which our Faith is lived out and expressed. To quote Brother Alexis Bugnolo, writing in Seattle Catholic:

The details of ecclesiastical tradition (small "T") are not a matter of dogma per se, but they are the inerrant manner in which dogma and doctrine are taught, learned, expressed, and lived. The details of ecclesiastical tradition may develop; they are not written in stone. But they may develop only slowly, "organically," in terms of quantity or quality (not substance), and in such a manner that is consistent with Natural Law and which better expresses the Faith (or at least doesn't harm the Faith, such as the novel practices since Vatican II do). Many of the problems in the Church since the Second Vatican Council stem from the almost complete eradication or revolutionizing of ecclesiastical tradition, in spite of the Second Council of Nicaea's anathema against such things and in spite of the fact that they have proven dangerous to the Faith.

There can only be one Truth.

Paul warned us about those introducing false teachings, "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." (2 Tim. 4:3–4).

The protestant “reformation” is simply not Biblical:

“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 1Cor 1:10-17

You could easily read the above as “One of you says, "I follow Luther"; another, "I follow Calvin"; another, "I follow Wesley"; still another, "I follow Christ."

Christians cannot be “perfectly united in mind and thought” when they have different beliefs on, say, the necessity of water baptism, while others believe “This is my Body” means “This is a cookie”

God bless in your journey to the truth.

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Mat 6:18

“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” John 16:12-13

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Mat 28:18-20

Fortunately, we have Christ’s promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church. They will arise, endure sometimes for centuries, like Protestantism, but we can be confident in Christ’s promise that the Church He established will always teach the Truth.

Text: Matthew 16:13-20

Is the Papcy Biblical

I. The world was fascinated with the process the Roman Catholic Church used to pick a new pope.

A. We were given detailed accounts of all the traditions surrounding a pope’s selection

B. We were shown the events step by step.

C. But in all the hoopla, how many wondered where the papacy came from?

1. It certainly wasn’t from the Bible because popes are not mentioned in the text.

2. Nor can you find cardinals, let alone elections, or colored smoke and the like.

D. The Roman Catholic Church bases it’s papacy on a set of beliefs

1. That Peter was the rock on which the church was founded

2. That Peter was the chief apostle

3. That there has be a succession to the apostles

E. While other denominations reject the papacy, the Roman Catholic church is not alone in these basic tenets.

1. Several major denominations believe that their leaders are a in a succession of leaders dating back to the apostles: one leader being appointed by other leaders, who were in turn appointed, and so on back to the days of the apostles.

2. The Episcopal Church and the Greek Orthodox Church are notable representatives of this belief.

II. Was Peter the rock? - Matthew 16:18

A. Much is made of the fact that Peter’s name means “stone” (Greek: petros)

1. What is glossed over is that Jesus said upon this rock (Greek: petra) I will build my church. There is a change in terms.

2. To slide around the difficulty, you will find people saying that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, where the two words are the same. It is then argued that the difference was introduced by the translator to bring stylistic variances so it would be easier to read in Greek.

a. But wait! No Aramaic version of Matthew exists!

b. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: “One thing which seems certain is that whatever this Hebrew (Aramaic) document may have been, it was not an original form from which the present Greek Gospel of Matthew was translated, either by the apostle himself, or by somebody else ... Indeed, the Greek Matthew throughout bears the impression of being not a translation at all, but as having been originally written in Greek.”

c. Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible: “It must be admitted, however, that no fragment of an Aramaic Matthew has ever been found and a Greek edition is more plausible than a Greek translation. Matthew’s gospel does not give evidence of being a translation, which is one of the weak evidences for the Aramaic theory.”

d. What leads scholars to admit that Matthew was written in Greek and not Aramaic?

(1) The little interpretations imbedded in the text - Matthew 1:23

(2) The smoothness of the word flow in Greek – especially idioms.

e. Besides other know translations, such as the Latin Vulgate preserves the different genders of the two words, using petrus (masculine) and petram (feminine) in it’s translation.

3. Some will say, Jesus spoke Aramaic and this was just translated by Matthew into Greek.

a. If so, Matthew was guided by the Holy Spirit in his writing - I Corinthians 2:12-13

b. Therefore the difference was by the choice of God, not man

B. Just who was the rock?

1. Isaiah prophesied that the Messiah would be the foundation - Isaiah 28:16

2. Paul said Jesus was the Rock - I Corinthians 10:4

3. Peter quotes Isaiah and applies it to Jesus - I Peter 2:4-8

a. In this passage, Peter uses the Greek word lithos for stone

b. But note verse 8, he also calls Jesus a rock (Greek: petra) of offense – the same word Jesus used to say that upon this His church would be built.

c. Peter is claimed to be the Rock, but Peter said the rock was Christ!

4. The only foundation is Jesus Christ - I Corinthians 3:11

C. What was the rock in Matthew 16:18?

1. It was what Peter confessed, that Jesus was the Son of the Living God.

2. The truth of who Jesus was, is the foundation of the church.

III. Was Peter the chief apostle?

A. One proof offered is that when apostles are named, Peter always comes first.

1. While generally true, it is not always true - John 1:44; I Corinthians 3:22; 9:5; Galatians 2:9

2. Nor was Peter always first, such as at the foot washing - John 13:6

B. Another proof is the claim that Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom - Matthew 16:19

1. Yet it is ignored that Jesus repeated this in Matthew 18:18-20 to all the apostles.

2. When the church was founded, Peter was the main speaker, but notice - Acts 2:14

3. The foundation was laid on all the apostles - Ephesians 2:19-21

C. A few Catholics will claim that Peter was head of the council in Jerusalem, demonstrating his headship

1. However, Acts 15 shows that Peter testified at the council as had Paul and Barnabas - Acts 15:7, 12

2. But it was James who summed up the findings - Acts 15:13

3. And it was James who made the recommendation on how to solve the problem - Acts 15:19-20

4. The letter came from the group, not Peter - Acts 15:23

D. Paul said he was not inferior to the other apostles - II Corinthians 11:5; 12:11

E. Peter refused homage - Acts 10:26, something the popes have never refused.

F. Peter saw himself as a fellow elder, one of many - I Peter 5:1

G. Paul properly rebuked Peter for following James’ lead - Galatians 2:11-12

H. The closest claim is that James, Peter, and John seemed to be pillars in the church - Galatians 2:9. No where is there a claim that any single man was the pillar of the church.

I. Odd that when the apostles argued about who would be first, that Jesus rebuked them - Luke 9:46-48; 22:24-27

1. It was this desire for pre-eminence that Jesus condemned in the Jews - Matthew 23:6-11

2. This is why Jesus commanded no titles, such as “father.”

a. Yet Catholics call their priests “father”

b. The word “pope” is Latin for “father”

c. The very establishment of the pope is contrary to the wishes of the church’s founder, Jesus Christ.

3. Pope’s title: Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of Vatican City State

IV. Was Peter succeeded?

A. A Catechism of Christian Doctrine: “Did Christ intend that the special power of chief teacher and ruler of the entire church should be exercised by Saint Peter alone? Christ did not intend that the special power of chief teacher and ruler of the entire church should be exercised by Saint Peter alone, but intended that this power should be passed down to his successor, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the visible head of the Church. (a) A successor to Saint Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, was required for the same reason that successors were required for the other apostles. From the very beginning it was acknowledged by the Church that the successor of Saint Peter as Bishop of Rome was at the same time head of the entire Church. This successor of Saint Peter is called the Pope.”

B. The claim is flawed on many levels.

1. There is no proof that Peter was bishop in Rome.

a. The claim is based on a Roman Catholic tradition.

b. It is not found in the Bible

c. Nor is there historical evidence that I am aware of.

2. The first claim for succession of authority from Peter that we have recorded is by Stephen I in 250 AD; long after Peter’s death.

3. The claim that it has always been so is historically false

a. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, 248-258 AD, “None of us has ever dared to proclaim himself bishop of bishops, forcing with tyrannical terror the obedience of his colleagues ...”

b. It was Leo I (440-461 AD) who got the Roman Emperor, Valentinian III, to issue an edict declaring the Roman See as the supreme court of appeal for all bishops. The fact that such as declaration was necessary indicates it was in dispute.

c. And it was Augustine in Carthage who wrote in 430 AD, “Anyone who appeals to those overseas [i.e. Rome] shall not be received by the communion of the bishops of Africa.”

4. Interestingly, the first person to claim the title of pope was the bishop of Constantinople in 588 AD.

a. In response, the bishop of Rome, Gregory I, wrote: “You know it, my brother; had not the venerable council fo Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of universal upon the bishop of this apostolic See, whereof I am, by God’s Will, the servant, And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given him; none has assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all other brethren ... But far from Christians be this blasphemous name by which all honor is taken from all other priests, while it is foolishly arrogated by one.”

b. Gregory I also wrote: “I am bold to say, that whosoever adopts or affects the title of universal bishop has the pride and character of anti-Christ, and is in some manner his forerunner in this haughty quality of elevating himself above the rest of his order.”

c. In 604 AD, the emperor Phocas tried to give the title to Gregory I, but he refused it. However, his successor, Boniface III, accepted the title in 607 AD.

V. The claim for a universal head of the church, resting upon a man living upon the earth is clearly a man-made doctrine that took centuries to develop

A. There is no support for the office, the nature of the office, or even a remote concept within the Scriptures.

B. Why modify the truth? Why follow a religion that is the figment of man’s imagination?

C. Come to Christ, the true head of His church.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Infallibility

How Infallibility Works

How to recognize what is and isn't infallible

How the teachings are passed down