Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Published on November 22, 2005 By Dr Guy In Religion

There is a very real misconception about how the Pope is Infallible.  Indeed, it is not only held by non-catholics, but many Catholics as well.  But the truth is that the Pope can only be Infallible when certain conditions are met.  And while the Church does not list how many times those conditions have been met, most theologians only agree on 2 instances.

The first was in 1854 When Pope Pius IX came out with the Immaculate Conception of Mary (another misconception for a later day).  The Second was in 1950 when Pope Pius XII spoke on the Assumption of Mary.

Some theologians believe there are more instances, and indeed there maybe.  But it was the Vatican Council I that came up with the official doctrine so any Infallible statements prior to that are argued upon, even though the doctrine has its roots in the Gospels and Paul's letters.  So while the Pope may have been speaking infallibly in the past, some dont recognize it until it became an official Teaching of the Church.

So it is evident that not everything the Pope says is infallible, and indeed from the sparsity of times it is even thought to have been done, most of the time the Pope is not infallible.

For the Pope to make an infallible statement, some conditions have to be met.  First he must be speaking ex cathedra, or for the whole Church. Second it cannot contradict any previous teachings of the Church. Third, he must basically state that he is resolving some point of Doctrine with absolute authority, and finally, he must be addressing the entire Church (the entire Church being all members of faith).

So while some Priests last year were railing against John Kerry and his pro-life position on abortion, no Pope has ever spoken Ex Cathedra on the subject, and therefore it is a teaching of the Church, not a doctrine of the Church.  And that in itself is a critical distinction.  For any Catholic can doubt a Teaching of the Church, and still remain a member in good standing.  But you cannot doubt a Doctrine of the Church and still remain a Catholic (Doubting in and Doubting out).

The Doctrine of Infallibility is a powerful one, and while the Church has been abusive in many of its practices in the past, that is one it has not abused.  And for Good reason.  For the whole concept behind Infallibility is that you are speaking with the Voice of God.  And even corrupt Popes did not want to cross Him!


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Nov 27, 2005

No. But personal interpretation is not used fro teaching or preaching the Word.
I have a post coming shortly on that topic.

I dont mean interpreting scripture.  Rather when they apply it to current circumstances, that is their interpretation.  And that is why it varies from person to person.  It is evident that even the Bishops in the US are not of one voice - just look at how they treated Kerry?  Some accepting him with open arms, others threatening to deny him the Eucharist.  Different interpretations pertaining to modern life.

on Nov 27, 2005
dont mean interpreting scripture.


That is precisely what I mean. One has to interpret and then make the application. On a personal level that works fine for the most part. But in a publc way, say preching, or endorsements (or non-endorsements) as you pointed out it doesn't work so well. The denial of the Eucharist was an attempt to bring American Catholicism back in line with Rome. When it is called to the Vatican's attention, (dissention), it is addressed, sometimes to the dispatch of a Papal Nuncio (personal rep). It happened here when there was much debate about modernizing a Cathedral and charges of kick backs, bribes, and sacriledge.
American Catholicism has ever been a problem for Rome. Our government and constitution do not follow the European mold. You have to remember that the Vatican is a kind of monarchy albeit a religious one, styled after ancient European ones, with a good dose of ancient Roman imperialism thrown in. If you draw the comparison, the Synod of Bishops and College of Cardinals are very much like the Roman Senate under Ceasar. (That doesn't condemn it, it's just a judicial/governmental system it was patterned after.) Although like the former, it is susceptible to corruption, like any institution of man (I am making the distinction between the Church as the body of Christ and the corporeal institution itself).
For a great example of the problems of American Catholicism, just look to the debate over John Kennedy being nominated for President. The common theme was "where does his allegiance lie?" The same to a lesser extent occurred with John Kerry (maybe it's just being named John? j/k). The topic of your post underscores the fears that many had during those debates. If the Pope spoke Ex Cathedra on say, abortion, (which he could in light of the Commandment not to kill), would a sitting Catholic president defy the law of the land? Would he be excommunicated if he did not? Europe has had it's share of problems with unity as well. Witness Henry VIII and the birth of the Church of England. That was personal interpretation and application run amok!
Link
The same holds true today pertaining to modern life. We throw off Christ's teaching when it does not suit us. Worse yet, we bend it to our own will.
on Nov 27, 2005
KFC, please stop taking my replys out of context. Your defense of hurling your interpretation of scripture, as it suits you, is insulting at best, and offensive at worst.


Well I'm not sure what I did to offend you here. You seem very angry. Can you tell me where I went wrong? I went to scripture to answer you, didn't give you my answers but that of what scripture has taught us. If you have read the gospels you would know that Jesus time and time again would go to the scriptures in his answers. When he was tempted...remember what he said to Satan..."It is written, it is written and it is written" each and every time the devil tried to take him away from God in his temptation.. Should I do any less? We are to follow him and we are told by him to love God with our whole heart, soul and MIND. We are to use our minds and we are to read the scriptures. We don't interpret it...we read it. The Holy Spirit is our teacher. If you want more info on this read the whole upper room discourse in John Chap 13-17.

When I read your reply...again going back to scripture I could hear Paul saying....."Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Gal 4:16

God's word is truth.....and I will go to it again and again to get my answers because there is nothing in this world which makes more sense to me.

And that from a child you have know the holy scripturees which are able to make thee wise unto salvation thruough faith which is in Christ JESUS. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 2 Tim 2:15-16.
on Nov 27, 2005
Can you tell me where I went wrong?


Sola Scriptura
on Nov 27, 2005
Hi Doc,

Well I sat down with my dog-eared bible and looked thru each and every verse you gave me above in context. Some kinda go together so I put together. Now remember my original question was for you to show me in scripture where the Pope is infalible in his ex Cathedra position. I don't see any of these verses do that but here goes anyhow.

Matt 10:2- The listing of the 12. The 12 are always listed in similar order. Peter is mentioned first and is considered the spokesman for the group. Notice Judas is mentioned last. Quite common also to name most prominent first and so on.

Matt 7:24-28-The parable of hearing God's words and doing them is like a man which builds his house on a rock. I'm taking it you are tying this in with Peter being that rock? Well just cuz it mentions the word rock doesn't mean it's Peter. The house here would seem to represent our spiritual life and the rain could be divine judgement and the house built on the foundation of God's word will stand. The subject is those who hear and do Jesus' sayings.

Matt 16:18-You weren't suppose to come here memba? Ok *sigh* "Thou art Peter (petros) and upon this rock (petra) I will (future) build my church (ecclesia-called out ones).......

This is where knowing the original language is great. I have a great site called greeknewtestament.com which is very helpful. You can type in any verse and it comes up in Greek, Latin, the Catholic DR and many other translations. Peter is not the rock....Christ is. All thru Scripture Christ is called the rock, the cornerstone, the chief boulder. etc. Paul says: "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Cor 10:4 This whole exchange is a play on words....Christ is the bedrock and Peter by interpretation means stone/or pebble. Big diff.

Peter also teaches on this in 1 Peter 2:4-8 saying Chirst is the living stone (v4), the corner stone (v6), the rejected stone (v7) and the stuumbling stone (v8).

Luke 10:16.."He that hears you hears me....." not sure why you chose this one? Reading in context is very important. So who's he talking to? Well if you go to v1 you read..."The Lord appointed 70 others also and sent them out 2 by 2 before his face into every city and place where he himself would come." He then issues the command which is the verse you gave.

John 16:13 ....when 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 show you things to come.
14:26: But the comforter which is the HS whom the Father will send in my name he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said to you.

Now the HS is a HE as you can see. It's not the CC as I'm thinking you are saying? It's the third part of the trinity. Compare with 14:17-"Even the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive because it sees him not neither knows him but you know him for he dwells with you and shall be in you[/U]. Also can read 15:26 & 16:7

1 John 2:27-well not exactly...this is both v20 and 27 that you quoted above. But this is about the annointing of the HS (27). Notice it abides in you. The HS guides the believer into "knowing all things."(14:26 & 16:13) It's kinda like True Christians have a built in lie detector. I believe if you know the truth you can easily spot the lie when it crops up. We know instantly 2+2 does not equal 6. Pilate asked standing in front of Jesus...."What is truth?" when truth was standing right in front of you.

John 21:15-17-This is the part when Jesus asks 3 times Peter do you love me? That whole scene is to reinstate Peter into the ministry. This shows the great love and compassion of Jesus towards Peter who had just denied him. 3 times Peter denied him and 3 times Jesus asks him this question. When he first commissioned Peter it was to be a fisher of men...now here before he leaves, he commissions Peter to be a shepherd.....this is a dual commission. By hook and by crook.......

The rest in a nutshell to not be JW like...........is that we are the temple of God. God has not instituted a denomination or a building but a people. Church is people....universal...not a denomination. Jesus said "My kingdom is not part of this world" These religions are basically set up as mini Kingdoms. 1 Cor 3:16 Know you not that you are the temple of god and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 6:19- What? know you not that your body is the temple of the HS which is in you which you have of God and you are not your own?

One last one in answer to a lot of the above is found in Eph 2:19-22-You are no more strangers and foreigners but fellowcitizens with the saints and of the household of God. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus himself being the chief corner stone. In whom all the building fitly framed together grows unto a holy temple in the Lord. In whom you also are builded together for a habitation of God trhough the Spirit. [/B

Tried to be as brief as I could be......there's so much more I could have said..... Have fun!!!

Now you haveta read this for yourself.....and figure out what is God teaching here? I would NEVER want you to take anyone's word for this.....NOT EVEN MINE...ok? Your eternal life is dependent on you not anyone else. Remember when Jesus died and the vail of the temple ripped in two? That was so we would have direct access to him. We no longer have to depend on going thru priests to know and deal with God anymore. Jesus was that ladder (Jacobs ladder in Gen) that bridges the gap.

If you could sit down and read the gospels in order. You would see quite a picture of what the religious establishment thought of Jesus and He them. I don't think it's any different today. He had his harshest words against them. If HE was here today He would be considered a lunatic just like then. nothing new under the SUN (SON).









on Nov 27, 2005
Thanks for this piece, Doc. I'm not Catholic, nor am I likely to become so, but I do appreciate having these common misconceptions cleared up.
on Nov 27, 2005
Sola Scriptura


well I knew that...but I was wondering which verse? Cuz I didn't interpret just put them down and they speak for themselves.

My question to you would be......have you ever sat down and read the gospels yourself? Not the whole bible just the gospels?

Grace & Peace

on Nov 27, 2005

The topic of your post underscores the fears that many had during those debates. If the Pope spoke Ex Cathedra on say, abortion, (which he could in light of the Commandment not to kill), would a sitting Catholic president defy the law of the land? Would he be excommunicated if he did not? Europe has had it's share of problems with unity as well. Witness Henry VIII and the birth of the Church of England. That was personal interpretation and application run amok!

I dont think he can based upon the restrictions of Ex Cathedra.  If he did, it would truly split the church.  But it is not going to happen.  As for Johns (no pun intended), Kerry was running as JFK, so maybe it was just JFKs?

In years of late, I dont see another scism.  We have seen many sects spring up, but they have died out just as quickly as well.  With the scisms of the Protestant churches, I think there is a flavor for all now.

on Nov 27, 2005

Now remember my original question was for you to show me in scripture where the Pope is infalible in his ex Cathedra position.

The first condidtion is he is exCathedra.  There are more.  The scriptures do not say "Here is the rule", they only lend to the idea he can be.  And then the theologians went from there.  Jesus did not give us a church.  He gave us a faith. Man then made churches out of it.  And indeed, hans Kung, a very respected theologian, would agree with you.  That does not mean you are wrong, or they are wrong, just that a justification exists.

on Nov 27, 2005

Thanks for this piece, Doc. I'm not Catholic, nor am I likely to become so, but I do appreciate having these common misconceptions cleared up.

That is my goal!  Go to pat Robertson is you want to be converted!  I just like to clear up the mistakes.

Thanks Gid!  That is a great honor coming from you!

on Nov 27, 2005
Jesus did not give us a church. He gave us a faith. Man then made churches out of it.


Yes I can agree with this.....I understand what you are saying. I believe he gave us a church tho...but not a denomination. Church meaning people of course....ecclesia.

Pat Robertson.....ugh!!

on Nov 28, 2005

Yes I can agree with this.....I understand what you are saying. I believe he gave us a church tho...but not a denomination. Church meaning people of course....ecclesia.

I think you said it better.  I wsa referring to church in the respect of religion, but denomination works better.

on Nov 28, 2005
well I knew that...but I was wondering which verse?


Sola Scriptura was my answer to your question:

Can you tell me where I went wrong?
on Nov 28, 2005
My question to you would be......have you ever sat down and read the gospels yourself? Not the whole bible just the gospels?


Yes. Pretty much every version in print, including Coptic; oft times with Strong's Concordance and extracts from the Latin Vulgate and Greek Septuigant for comparative study. I also have a set of Gospels I picked up at a Monastery book sale that are from the latter mid 1800s (pre Vatican II before the changes in the vernacular). I prefer the New Jerusalem Bible.

My return question to you would be "why?" I wouldn't debate you if I had not. You misquote Timothy btw. Taking the entire text in it's context, it does not support Sola Scriptura.

Matthew 16:19 however does support Infallability. Of the several meanings generally agreed upon of the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. We are concerned more here with the first. The conference of authoritative teaching by Christ on Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, carries by it's very nature Divine inerrancy and Supreme authority to teach and speak for and to the entire Christian Church. The second would be the consequence of not recognizing that authority.
on Nov 28, 2005
Greek Septuigant


The Greek Septuigant is the OT Hebrew translated in Greek.

You misquote Timothy btw. Taking the entire text in it's context, it does not support Sola Scriptura.


How did I misquote this? I think it's pretty explanatory......notice the word "all" and "every"

first Bishop of Rome


This can not be proven.

From the bible - when Peter preached the first sermon in Acts 2 you see delegates coming from all over to hear this. Here is named....."Phrygia, Pamphylia in Egypt and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene and strangers of ROME, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."

Now these delegates heard the gospel, recieved the HS and went back and started spreading the gospel (good news) and by doing so the church was propagated.. It wasn't Peter who started the church in Rome it was the ones that heard Peter that day.. Now if you go to the last chapter of Romans you can see it even clearer. Paul is writing to the church of Romans and he gives greetings to the church people that are working in this church....and he doesn't mention Peter here at all. Peter wasn't there.

Now go to the book of Acts and read chap 15. This is the first council of Jerusalem. This was the council that recognized Gentiles were now allowed to enter the church alongside the Jews as equal heirs to salvation. After they all give their speeches, Peter included....James the head of the church gives his verdict.

V13 says...."After they had held their peace, James answered saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me."

It was James not Peter who was head of the church. As far as I know this is not debated in any writings.

quote]"why?"

because you say you are religious but you show a "hostility" for the holy scriptures. That's why. I thought maybe if you read it straight thru "prayerfully" God would speak to your heart.

Now please don't think I'm out to pick on the CC or any other group. I'm not. My heart is for the truth and for those who are "genuinely" seeking the truth even if it hurts. Sometimes it does. Jesus said that any not willing to leave Father and Mother for my sake is not worthy of me. That may mean leaving one's tradition or religious beliefs. That's what I search for. I don't want my ego fed or my opinion to be held up high. I could care less. If I'm wrong I want to know so the truth can be fullly exposed.
I want God to get the glory and him alone.

With some people I walk arm and arm and eye to eye. Some I walk arm and arm but not eye to eye. But that's ok cuz we are going to heaven together anyhow. Some I believe are going in the opposite direction. I can neither walk arm and arm or see eye to eye with them now can I? I believe from what you have written to me so far....I could be wrong....but we are neither arm in arm or eye to eye regarding spiritual things.

That's unfortunate cuz I'm not your enemy. I'm just a begger with some bread trying to help other beggers to the bread.






3 Pages1 2 3