Comments on Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's

Latest Articles in this Channel:

02/23/08--12:04: Tertium Quid commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

« Home | Reflections in the summer of 2004 about Muslim fas... » | What is the purpose of art and art education? » | Remembering some heroes... » | Michael Yon on Route Tampa, the road from Kuwait t... » | Holding Kirkuk » | Can a dove win the national election of 2008? » | Liberalism and Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. » | Battle of Passchendaele remembered 90 years later » | Why are Americans getting relatively shorter than ... » | $660 million in settlements by the Archdiocese of ... »

On why I am a Catholic...


I have a good friend who is a Protestant minister, and we carry on a very respectful conversation about Protestantism and Catholicism. Here is a portion of an email I sent during an exchange about the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Church:


There is always much to say about theology. Indeed, what better subject is there?

I appreciate your respectful discourses on sensitive topics. We live in a culture in which disagreements on theology, politics, or philosophy result not in discussion but ad hominem attacks. I'm of the old school that a good dinner debate is healthy, so long as the participants want to find Truth with a big T.

I became a Catholic because I could not see how Protestantism in any of its forms could contain or explain the breadth of the Church as I came to understand it: sacraments, doctrines, history, mystery, saints, sacramental authority, moral authority, unity, diversity, gifts of the Holy Spirit, ordination, holy orders, Church councils, sin and penance, etc. I didn't embrace the Church because of the Marian doctrines; I embraced the Marian doctrines because I love the Church. (I do know some Catholics who found their faith through dramatic intervention by the Blessed Virgin.)

However, the Blessed Virgin has so excelled in her role as teacher of prayer, piety, and devotion to her Son that I cannot imagine the Church developing in any other way that to venerate her as integral to man's salvation and vividly revealing of the mystery of the God's Trinitarian nature. Jesus could have sprung "from the head of Zeus" like Athena, but instead He was born of a woman. The Blessed Virgin as Mother of God is the mystery which illuminates the even greater mystery of our Triune God. The Incarnation not only reveals who God is, but it also reveals who Man is, and the Blessed Virgin is Exhibit 1A of mankind in all of its fullness as intended in God's divine plan.

Protestants generally criticize Catholicism's doctrines as developed through the Church's councils and try to refute them through the scriptures, and that method is how one becomes or remains a Protestant. Soli scriptura is right, or the alternatives are liberal Protestantism, traditional sacramental Christianity, or something else that not likely rooted in Christianity. I have seen Protestants become Catholic through a close reading of the scriptures: Scott Hahn and Marcus Grodi come to mind. Ultimately, sola scriptura is not scriptural.

In my case, however, I became a Catholic by asking a very big question, not a series of little ones: What is the Church with a capital C? Having been an Anglican, an evangelical, a charismatic, and a Missouri-Synod Lutheran, I could not believe that the Church is merely a broad coalition of little republics. The Church is part of the Kingdom of God and must have more unity than the collegial debates of an evangelical college. I also could not forget that the sacraments were the essential act of Christian worship throughout Church history, despite the evangelicals attempts to turn a learned sermon into the main feature. So off I went to read everything I could read: Crisis magazine, The Wanderer, Russell Kirk (not a whole lot of theology, but a lot of philosophy, aesthetics, and history), Christopher Dawson, John Henry Newman, G.K. Chesterton, George Rutler, George Weigel, and others. Even the non-Catholics such as C.S. Lewis, T.S. Eliot, Wilhelm Roepke, and George Marsden seemed to point to Rome, even when they didn't so intend.

What I learned is that Protestants have sacred traditions, even if they cannot admit having them: the Trinity and the canon of scripture, for instance, are gifts of the Church Fathers to the Protestants, and Protestants would be hard-pressed to explain these gifts without the commentaries of the Church Fathers. It is more than ironic that Calvinists cannot explain their own doctrines without borrowing heavily from that august Bishop of Hippo. Likewise, the Rapture, Dispensationalism, "once saved, always saved" are Protestant words not found in the Bible but concepts taken as gospel truth by millions of people.

Once I determined that the scriptures alone are not self-authenticating, that they required the endorsement of the bishops to have their lawful authority and the interpretation of the bishops in order to prevent schism and heresy, I had one foot in the Tiber River. If there was a Church with a capital C that made theologically momentous decrees during the 4th and 5th centuries (after Constantine supposedly "corrupted" the Church by making it legal), then at what historic juncture did this divinely ordained institution lose its divine inspiration and guidance? The Orthodox just cut it off after the seventh ecumenical council, but a caesaro-papacy made their bishops more subject to political pressures than almost any Roman bishop. The Orthodox claim the Roman papacy overstretches its authority, and the Protestants agree, even when some Protestants reject half the doctrines and practices held dear by the Orthodox as derived from the first seven Church councils. Protestants are understandably ambiguous about the authority of any Church councils, because they essentially argue that the early Church councils merely ratified the correct doctrines derived from scripture. The problem is that scriptures were used by both sides of every debate; the bishops had to discern the Holy Spirit's will, not unlike today! There was, for instance, vigorous debate on whether Hebrews or Revelation should be in the canon of scripture.

I bring up these issues because the Church councils had the authority to define Mary's role in the 5th century, and so I believe they still have such authority and continue to do so. In fact, the 8th chapter of Lumen Gentium (1964) defines Mary's role in the Church. I don't think we can be historically honest, pick and choose Christian doctrines, and then claim that scripture makes our views self-evident. Notice that this chapter is set up by important discourses on the Trinity, the Church, the clergy, the laity, the religious, and the communion of saints.

One thing I love about Catholicism is that when someone is full of the Holy Spirit, he or she starts a holy order or apostolate within the Church rather than begins a new denomination. For instance, Ss. Francis and Bonaventure had to fight a movement within the Francisans to "franciscanize" the entire Church into poverty and austerity, but such a movement would have turned healthy reform into gnosticism.

This historic ability over 2,000 years to correct itself is what makes me believe that the Church in Rome is the Church with a capital C, not because it is without fault, but because God revives every few centuries when it seems to have fixed itself upon self-destruction.




02/23/08--12:04: David H. Lukenbill commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

I would also ask the question Aimee did (what is your real name) and the answer, or non-answer, will reveal integrity or a lack of it.

You have entered into an extended dialogue involving several people on this blog, and without being straightforward about your identity, it essentially negates the straightforwardness you proclaim for your positions.

I would agree with Aimee that your website is deceptive and the solution to that is to be straightforward.

Without being straightforward about what you present and who you are, deception infects every emanation.





02/23/08--12:04: Aimee commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

Inspector, you said:

Aimee, you state: The Church does not speak of being “converted twice.” Actually, the Catechism uses those words (1427-1428). "Baptism is the principal place for the first and fundamental conversion...This [Christ's call to conversion] second conversion is an uninterrupted task for the whole Church..."

That is correct, and I apologize for forgetting that the Catechism uses that phrase. But Inspector (by the way, what is your real name?), you must read the phrase in the full context of the section in which it falls, which is the section on the sacrament of penance and reconciliation (paragraphs 1422-1498), and understand the Church’s meaning of it. This section is not about initial conversion and coming to faith in Christ, but about repenting for sin after coming to faith in Christ, (readers, if any of you don’t have a Catechism, you can look at a searchable online version here ).

Here are the two paragraphs in question:

1428 Christ's call to conversion continues to resound in the lives of Christians. This second conversion is an uninterrupted task for the whole Church who, "clasping sinners to her bosom, [is] at once holy and always in need of purification, [and] follows constantly the path of penance and renewal." This endeavor of conversion is not just a human work. It is the movement of a "contrite heart," drawn and moved by grace to respond to the merciful love of God who loved us first.

1429 St. Peter's conversion after he had denied his master three times bears witness to this. Jesus' look of infinite mercy drew tears of repentance from Peter and, after the Lord's resurrection, a threefold affirmation of love for him. The second conversion also has a communitarian dimension, as is clear in the Lord's call to a whole Church: "Repent!"
St. Ambrose says of the two conversions that, in the Church, "there are water and tears: the water of Baptism and the tears of repentance.

The “second conversion” refers to on-going repentance for sin, for we are still sinful after our initial conversion, and on-going sanctification. It is also on-going justification, in the sense that we must be made not only legally right in the Protestant sense (which we are at our initial conversion, which means we are destined for heaven), but also made really right, interiorly right, interiorly sanctified and purified, and growing in holiness. This is an on-going process, which Protestants also acknowledge in their doctrine of sanctification. This is also a thoroughly biblical concept.

You use Philippians 2:12 to support that you must be sanctified in order to be justified.

I would clarify: we must be fully sanctified to be fully justified, so we can enter heaven. How can we enter heaven, if we are still sinful? That is a question my Evangelical pastors could never answer. They conjectured; but they had no real answer. The Catholic Church does, and it is consistent with scripture.

This verse must be taken in context with the next verse (and the entire book of Philippians). The next verse states that "it is God who is at work in you, BOTH TO WILL AND TO WORK.

Inspector, if I take you at your word, which is to take a verse of scripture out of context, then this means we become automatons when we place our faith in Christ. Robots, with no will of our own. But that is not the case. God did not create robots, He created children, family members, participants in His own Life.

You see, it is God who provides the power not only to do the work, but also provides the will in us to do so.

Of course. We are God’s creations. Everything about us has been given by God, including our will – and everything about us is being renewed, recreated, in Christ. And it is one of the beauties of God that He created us free, free to choose, free to obey – or disobey. He calls us, but we must respond.

Eph. 2:10 also brings this out, calling us "God's workmanship" created for good works, which God provides beforehand.

Ephesians 2:8-10 is one of my favorite passages of scripture. I use it frequently with poorly-catechized Catholics, to explain the Catholic doctrine that we do not work our way to salvation independently of the grace of God, but cooperate with the grace of God in our salvation.

Here are the verses in their entirety (note that vs. 8 states we are saved by grace, through faith):

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God – not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Moving on:

Justification is a completed event for the believer, as the verb tenses show. In Rom. 5:1, Paul states: "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

A little context here. Romans was written to Jewish Christians in Rome who were committing the sin of looking down on Gentile converts, treating them like second-class citizens because they weren’t Jewish. The whole letter is an exhortation to believers against willful sinning, because of the danger: it leads to death – the loss of salvation, which is eternal life.

This was a letter written to believers. If justification really is a one-time event in the Protestant sense, completed at the first moment of conversion, and salvation cannot be lost, then why does Paul warn them, “Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?” (Rom 6:16)

And, later: “To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Rom 7:6-8)

And later, “I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of you mind.” (Rom 12:1-2)

In other words, “Hey, believers, don’t yield yourselves to sin now that you have given yourselves to Christ, because you could lose it and die. If you set you mind on the ways of the world, you will be hostile to God and cannot please Him. So please, for the sake of your salvation, stop sinning, be holy, and conform your mind to God’s mind.” If we do that, then, as in the verse you quote, we will have peace with Christ. But if we don’t…..

Why is salvation entirely the work of God, and not a result of works? Eph. 2:9 - so that no one may boast.

Yes. Salvation is entirely the work of God. We are powerless to save ourselves – but it is the powerlessness of someone caught in a powerful current, unable to swim out, when someone tosses him a line. We grab on and hold on, and are pulled out. But even our ability to grab on is empowered by God – the very hand we grab with was created by God.

We do make effort, Inspector, the effort to give ourselves more and more to God, and be more and more like how He wants us to be. But the very fact that we can is due to God Himself, not ourselves, because He is our Father, and He created us. In making effort for God, we are fulfilling the reason for our creation in the first place: to live for, love, and obey God, in relationship with Him.

And we are to grow in grace and holiness. Our works are not “earning our way to heaven,” but working according to the grace of God, as He created us to do, enabled by His grace, growing in holiness and virtue, moving constantly toward heaven during our life, so we can live with Him forever. And the more we give ourselves to God, conform ourselves to Him, the more He can work in us – and the more we can work according to His grace. It is a relationship, conforming ourselves to God in love over the course of our lives, according to His loving design, with His loving assistance. And the more we give ourselves to Him this way, the greater our reward in heaven.

God uses His holy law to bring His children into relationship with Him.

Yes. As I was just saying.

The law is our tutor to lead us to Christ (Gal. 3:24). Then, after we have been justified, we obey the law not out of obligation, but out of gratitude for having been justified, and adopted into God's family.

Oh, there is no obligation to obey the law? I beg to differ… along with the entire Christian tradition, the bible, Jesus, and God the Father Himself.

We are not required to obey Jewish dietary and purification law any longer. But the Ten Commandments still stand, and will stand forever – along with the new commandments and instructions given by Christ and the Apostles, such as the commandments to obey the church authorities, love one another, don’t get caught up in division and controversy, and remain as one. Which the Protestant Reformers manifestly failed to do, disobeying the bible in the name of the bible itself.

Moving on:

By the way, I am quite familiar with Catholic teaching, having spent 34 years learning my Catholic faith.

If this is the case, than I wonder how well catechized you were, as the quality of catechesis can really vary. Many Catholics grew up in the Church, even attended Catholic schools the whole time, without ever really learning or understanding their faith. This is why, for example, many of them are easily converted to Protestantism (as you were, it appears), and is one of the reasons why I write: to share the truth and beauty of the Catholic faith with them.

Luther was Catholic, Calvin was Catholic. These were not men who were ignorant of the Catholic teachings and traditions.

While they might have been Catholic, I think it’s arguable that they were not ignorant. Quality of education in their areas in those days was not all that great, you know. The plague, for one thing, wiped out huge numbers of clergy and religious (who were usually the only ones to stick around and care for the sick, and so got sick and died themselves), and far more inferior men, both spiritually and intellectually, were recruited to fill the ranks.

So there weren’t a lot of good priests around for a long time to do good catechesis. People were largely dependant on clergy to teach the faith, as the printing press had not yet been invented, and most ordinary people were illiterate. So the loss of good teachers in turn affected the life of the faithful, which is one of the things that helped contribute to the Protestant Reformation (which was not a reformation, but a break. The Church reformed herself later).

I use and study Catholic source documents. I am far from ignorant about Catholicism.

Regarding the former, I would urge you to continue studying them, for your own instruction and good, for they are the Holy Spirit speaking to you. Regarding the latter, if it is true that you study Catholic documents, you show remarkable lack of understanding of them. But that is not surprising, if you are a fallen-away Catholic steeped in anti-Catholicism, which makes it very difficult to see Catholicism clearly.

I encourage you to be noble minded like the Bereans, and search the Scriptures, and use them as your authority.

It is because of my searching of Scripture that I am a Catholic today. As an Evangelical, long before I began studying Catholicism (and I knew nothing about it, as no one in my family is Catholic and I’d never been around any knowledgeable Catholics), I began to see contradictions between what I was reading in the bible, and what I was hearing preached from the pulpit. When a new Christian, I had been taught that individual verses of scripture must always be interpreted in light of the whole of scripture, or you can get it wrong. So I was reading the bible that way, and constantly using my concordance to compare verses and passages of scripture that dealt with the same subjects, for a fuller understanding.

It appeared to me that my Evangelical pastors were taking individual verses of scripture out of the full context of scripture, and interpreting them in light of a pre-existing theology that contradicted other verses of scripture, on issues like the role of Mary, whether or not you can lose your salvation, the nature of the bread and wine, the nature of sin and death (I used to wonder how, if we had not been completely sanctified of sin before we died, we could enter heaven), the figure of Peter, etc. The key passages dealing with these issues either were never addressed, or addressed so poorly that it was plain the pastors were actually convoluting and contradicting scripture in order to justify their theology.

It was a real surprise when later I began studying Catholicism, and found that the Catholic Church was teaching and had always taught the very things that I had been observing for myself from scripture. And it also became clear, as I studied history, that Protestantism itself is a new theology, new and false doctrines based on misunderstanding of scripture, that came along 1500 years after the fact, of the kind that the bible itself warns against, and which we are not to pay attention to.

It is the Governor, not the Pope, who is infallible when speaking.

Inspector, that is exactly my point. At key moments, regarding key questions of doctrine, God guides the Pope infallibly in making the right decision, and sometimes while facing considerable opposition from bishops who see things differently. It is God’s infallibility, and God’s authority, at work, not a personal characteristic of the Pope’s.

Concerning my website being deceptive, I would appreciate your comments (offline please) so that I can address any concerns you may bring to my attention. My goal is not to be deceptive, but straightforward with the Gospel.

I will certainly do that, if I can find the time. In the meantime, for the benefit of my readers, I will say this much here: your home page contains no information about who you are or what you are doing, and in your store, which is linked on your home page, you have a combination of Catholic and non-Catholic books, just enough to make it look, at first glance, like a Catholic store – and so an easy snare for untutored Catholics. I’m not familiar with all of the authors, but one, RC Sproul, is a notorious anti-Catholic. I say this in order to warn my readers, in case any of them are unaware of this.

Thank you for engaging in discussions with me.

You’re welcome. I hope it bears good fruit, Inspector Fruiteau.

One last thought: you and I clearly disagree on the interpretation of scripture. But neither you nor I have the authority to decide the correct interpretation. I have placed my faith in the Church Jesus founded, in obedience to scripture, because I believe in Jesus, and so believe His promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. In obedience to Him I accept the teaching of His Church, like a little child, trusting that He is in control.

You have placed your faith in the Protestant reformers, who came along 1500 years after Christ, and claimed authority for themselves, in obedience to – what? Their non-authoritative, uninformed opinions about scripture, and their hatred of the Church Jesus founded.

I used to stand, unwittingly, where you stand now. Like you, I tried to convert Catholics away from Catholicism. But when I realized where I was standing, that I was standing in the wrong place, a place broken from and against Jesus’ Church, though I was not personally against Jesus, I repented, and changed where I was standing, so I could be closer and truer to Him.

We don’t get to make up our minds about doctrine, Inspector. That is a work of the Holy Spirit, accomplished through the authority of the leaders of His Church. Our job is to listen, believe, and obey. If we don’t, if we believe something different, then regardless of our motives we are following deceiving spirits, and can unwittingly be like Paul, to whom Jesus said, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:2)

I would think about it, Inspector. You don’t want be like Paul prior to his own conversion, in your zeal for Christ.





02/23/08--12:05: Dennis Martin commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

Inspector,

Am I correct to assume that you have not yourself read Olivi nor John XXII's writings on the topic but that you got this from some non-Catholic source? Would you trust the Democrats' account of a Republican position? Or a Catholic account of Luther's doctrines? A Catholic can describe Luther accurately, a Protestant can describe the doctrine of John XXII and Olivi or one or the other accurately, a Democrat can describe a Republican's position accurately. But sometimes they don't describe their opponents accurately. So, if one takes his account of Muslim teaching from a Hindu source, one first has to find a way to make sure it's accurate. It might be, it might not.

Is it possible that the problem with Olivi was not that he favored papal infallibility but that he favored it in the wrong way? Is it possible that the reason some of the bishops opposed the doctrine that was approved at Vatican I was not that they did not agree that that pope is infallible but disagreed about particular aspects of the way the particular Vatican I document was stated? Newman supported papal infalliblity but he opposed the declaration at Vatican I because he thought it was not the right time to proclaim it. Once it was approved, he accepted it fully. Your source "spins" Newman into an straight out opponent, quotes him out of context. The case of Pius IX and the Jewish boy is irrelevant here-as an argument what your source is doing is character assassination. If you want to find out the story of exactly what happened in the case of the Jewish boy, you could--it's a complicated story--but it's irrelevant here.

In short, what you provide here as evidence is typical anti-Catholic spin. The decision on papal infallibility in 1870 was a difficult one. Honest Catholics on both sides disagreed. But that's the mark of a healthy Church--they debated it. In the end, all but two approved. This undermines your source's story-line--that the Church was deeply divided and the doctrine was illegitimate--so your source spins the evidence that contradicts (and destroys his case) by implying that near unanmity was achieved only by intimidation and raw force. That reveals that your source is grinding an axe, has no interest in studying the history of what happened.

Would you be willing to tell us where you got this information? Would you be fairminded enough to read accounts of what happened from the Catholic side?

But all of that (and the entire argument you made here, from your source) is really a side-show because it tries to discredit the doctrine of papal infallibility by claiming that the circumstances of its declaration were unjust and immoral. They weren't but that's secondary.

The declaration of 1870 came only because of nationalism that had split the Church in the West in the Protestant Reformation. (The Protestant Reformation might never have split the Church but remained a renewal movement within the Church if the princes had not coopted it to serve the purpose of consolidation of all power under the state, crushing the international church in their realms and turning it into an arm of the state--state churches are a Protestant invention).

The ancient and underlying "infallibility" is simply that Christ will not permit his Church to leave him, go apostate or become fragmented. But avoiding fragmentation means there has to be a way to resolve disputes authoritatively (infallibly, trustworthily--if the disputes are resolved only fallibly, well, then they aren't resolved.)

The issue is whether Christ established a church with the structure to accomplish this task of dispute-resolving. The answer was always, yes. But exactly how does he do that? Well, that developed over time. The bishops were always the key and as long as nationalism had not developed, the bishops with the Bishop of Rome as their center of unity could manage to resolve disputes, people for the most part trusted and obeyed them.

But nationalism in western Europe produced bishops in England or theologians and princes i Germany who claimed to know better the "true interpretation" of the Bible on disputed matters, better than the bishop of Rome. They claimed, in effect, that "infallibility" belonged to (1) experts in Scripture languages (but which one of the experts is infallible when the experts disagree among themselves?) or (2) the prince, or (3) the one who has the true Holy Spirit anointing to interpret Scripture (but how to decide which one when several "prophets" claim the Holy Spirit spoke to him and told him the real Truth about this or that debate?

In that context, with Catholics disagreeing among themselves over exactly how "authoritative" the French Catholic Church or the German Catholic Church is in comparison to the Bishop of Rome, in that context, a clearer definition of the role of the Bishop of Rome was needed. It had not been needed earlier. Some Catholic bishops and theologians in 1870 thought it wasn't needed. But in the end, all but 2 bishops concluded it was needed.

But all of that simply was a further refinement of the basic principle that Christ established Peter to be the rallying point for unity, for resolving disputes. As long as his successors could do that in a less defined way and people listened and unity survived fine. But by 1870, it seemed to the bishops in the West at Vatican I that, if the Church universal was not going to be busted up into a series of competing national Churches, the authority of the bishop of Rome needed further, clearer definition.




02/23/08--12:05: Inspector Fruiteau commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

Aimee writes: "the Holy Spirit doesn’t give the charism of correct interpretation to everyone, but only to the authorities that Christ placed in His Church"

Which brings us full circle. The apostle John, writing his first letter to "my little children" (not Pope Peter, nor the apostles) tells them the following:

"This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life. These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him." No mention of needing an infallible teaching office.

John continues to tell us why he wrote the letter: "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." Yes, my Catholic friends, we may know that we have eternal life - contrary to Catholic teaching. And the reason that we may know is the name Jesus - His name means "God saves."

Aimee, I am not placing my faith in the Protestant reformers. While a member of the Catholic Church, by God's grace, on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, I placed my faith in Jesus. That is all I need. It is all anyone needs. He is all we need. Because it's all about Jesus. It grieves me when I read about people "consecrating themselves to Mary" (a type of the RCC). To consecrate oneself to a creature is very unwise. Jeremiah warns about the women who consecrated themselves to the "Queen of Heaven." Jer. 7:18, Jer. 44:17. John Paul II's motto: "Mary, I'm all yours" sends chills down my spine. It is base idolatry.

Jesus, I'm all yours!




02/23/08--12:05: Inspector Fruiteau commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

One contradiction:

In his bull "Qui quorundam" (1324), Pope John XXII denounced Peter Olivi's proposed doctrine of Papal infallibility as "the work of the devil."

The dogma of Papal infallibility was pronounced in 1870 at Vatican I amidst sinister intrigue. Many bishops at the council were opposed to the doctrine on both scriptural and traditional grounds. Bishops representing 80 million Catholics were opposed to even convening the Council. The proceedings were oppressive and threatening to those who opposed. Open discussion was suppressed. Exit visas were withheld to prevent many Bishops from leaving. But Pope Pius IX (who kidnapped a Jewish boy and raised him as his "son") was able to push the doctrine through. On the day before the vote, 55 bishops who were opposed left Rome in protest. John Henry Newman was opposed, stating that "so tyrannical an act as the vote of the majority" could not count as the moral unanimity needed to reveal the mind of the Church.

Before the final vote, 410 bishops were in favor, 162 opposed. In the end, two brave souls voted against the decree, even though by doing so they were anathematized. Included in the decree: "If any one - which may God forbid! - shall presume to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema."




02/23/08--12:05: Aimee commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

Inspector, you said:

Aimee writes: "the Holy Spirit doesn’t give the charism of correct interpretation to everyone, but only to the authorities that Christ placed in His Church" Which brings us full circle. The apostle John, writing his first letter to "my little children" (not Pope Peter, nor the apostles) tells them the following:

"This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life. These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him."

This is a good illustration of how problematic it can be to quote individual verses of scripture out of context, because they can be made to appear to mean something different from what they actually do. It’s like quoting a comment from a politician out of context, and making it seem like he was saying the opposite of what he meant – which happens all the time in the media.

These verses are from the first letter of John, chapter 2:25-2:27. To understand what John is saying, you must look at both the whole letter itself and the context in which it was written, and what the rest of scripture says on the subject .

The context of the letter was divisive people spreading false teaching (John calls them “antichrists”), threatening the unity of the Body. The letter was written to believers who apparently were being harassed by the deceivers, and their unity threatened.

Divisiveness and disbelief have always been a problem in the Church. From the beginning of its existence there were people who believed and people who disbelieved, and even among believers were some who came up with different ideas, false doctrines, and tried to usurp authority from the Apostles and promote their own ideas, causing division (this occasioned, for example, Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians and his letter to the Galatians; Peter warned about them in his second epistle). It still happens today. These false and divisive teachers also are the cause of John first epistle.

It is typical of epistles in the New Testament to include in the salutation some indication of the theme or cause of the letter. John does so in the very first sentence of this letter, in which he says, “… that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” (1:3)

The theme of the letter is fellowship, unity, in Christ, the Son of God. John is writing in order to preserve unity. Throughout the letter John emphasizes fellowship and love, and later in the letter, after he addresses the source of the divisiveness, he says, “For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.” Where did we hear this? From Jesus, on his last night on earth, which John recorded in his gospel. Jesus’ commandment that we should love one another (Jn 13:34) and become perfectly one (Jn 17:23) are in the background of this letter - indeed, His whole discourse at the last supper, spanning five chapters (Jn 13-17) and bookended with Jesus' words about love and oneness are in the background.

After the introductory section in the first epistle, John begins to move into the meat of the letter: “My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin,” (2:1), which he expands on through verse 2:15. What is the sin? “He who says ‘I know him’ but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him … he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.” (2:4, 6) In other words, people who claim to be Christians, but don’t obey his commandments or follow his example.

He comes to the crux of the matter in 2:18: “Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour.”

What is the antichrist? “This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.” So there were people who were not only sinning by breaking the commandments, but also denying Christ in some way, perhaps by denying that he was the Messiah (the Jews did this), or accepting that he was the Messiah, but denying that he was truly the Son of God and so not really God himself (an early heresy).

Whatever the case, John is clearly warning against these false teachers, in order to keep true believers united and strong in their faith. He follows his condemnation of the antichrists, the false teachers, with, “Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father” (2:24). What did they hear, and from whom? They heard the gospel, heard it proclaimed and explained by the Apostles, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. When we hear and receive the gospel, we also receive the Holy Spirit, because it is the Holy Spirit that enables us to hear in the first place: God who draws us, through His grace, which is the power of the Holy Spirit. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." (Jn 6:44)

This verse is followed by the verses you quoted, “These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him." It is the anointing of the Holy Spirit that inspires the Apostle to preach, and inspires the listeners to open up and receive the preaching. Which the faithful believers the John is writing to have done. They have listened, and received - they have already been taught by the Apostles, which is the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

Later he says, “We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” Who is the “us?” John was an Apostle, and a bishop of seven churches. It’s not a stretch to realize that he is talking about Church authority, bishops and Apostles, chosen and given authority by Christ, anointed by the Holy Spirit, teaching and writing with authority, the authoritative teachers of the faith from whom people learned the faith, long before they had bibles to consult.

So, in other words, what John is saying is you have no need to listen to these false teachers, because you have already heard and received the truth from us, the true teachers of the faith.

It can be seen, then, from the larger content and context of the letter, that John’s phrase “you have no need for anyone to teach you” is not a reference to any and all teachers of the faith, but to false teachers, those who teach differently from what they had heard from the Apostles, and so threatened the faith and unity of believers.

Yes, all believers receive the Holy Spirit. But there are also deceiving spirits, who lead people astray. How do we know which is which? By listening to the Apostles and their designated successors, who are the real authorities of the Church, whom we are to obey. If we obey them, then we have the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. But if we don’t obey, and believe something different, we don’t have the Holy Spirit, but are believing a deceiving spirit.

John concludes the section, “And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming.” In other words, abide in your faith in Christ and in the sound teaching which you have received from the Apostles – and so receive eternal life. Which is the essence of Catholic teaching, and the whole reason for the existence of the Church: eternal life with God.

Paul emphasized the same thing in his epistles to Timothy, whom he appointed a bishop. He warns against “deceiving spirits” (1 Tim 4:1), and exhorts Timothy,

“Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me … guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. … What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2) This is one of the indications of the beginning of the Apostolic Succession: Paul appointed Timothy, and instructed him to appoint others, handing on to them what he had learned from Paul. That’s how the faith was handed on in the beginning, and still is in the Catholic Church: by authoritative teachers, who had been taught the true faith by their predecessors.

Peter says, regarding the interpretation of scripture,

“There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” (2 Pet 3:17-18)

Note that he does not say, nor does anyone anywhere in scripture say, that when the going gets rough we should leave and found our own churches someplace else. That is completely against everything the bible says about the church, obedience, the unity of believers, and responses to division and controversy.

Paul also warns against division in 2 Tim, and warns, regarding eternal life, “If we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us.” (2 Tim 12) In other words, endure, don’t lose your faith and deny him, or he will deny you.

And later affirms of himself,

“I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness.” (2 Tim 3:7) In other words, Paul, writing from prison and awaiting death, knew that he had kept, not lost, the faith, and so would receive the crown of righteousness when he died.

In other words, you can lose your salvation if you lose your faith, and disobey or deny Christ. Which is what the Church and the bible both teach – but what many Protestants deny.

Moving on, you say:

And the reason that we may know is the name Jesus - His name means "God saves."

Yes. That is to state the obvious.

Aimee, I am not placing my faith in the Protestant reformers.

By believing a particular theology, a particular interpretation of scripture, i.e. placing your faith in it, you are placing your faith in the people who formulated the theology – in this case, the Protestant reformers. And their theology is different in many respects from that of the Apostles and of the bible.

While a member of the Catholic Church, by God's grace, on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, I placed my faith in Jesus.

That is a very wonderful and blessed thing. I am very happy that you did that. But you must realize that you are now attacking the very Church you received your faith from, and attacking the Church Jesus founded, which is His Body, which is to attack Jesus Himself (though He is merciful, and I hope does forgive you, as you are apparently doing it out of ignorance).

That is all I need. It is all anyone needs. He is all we need. Because it's all about Jesus.

Actually, you need not only to believe, but also to obey, and that entails many things, as I’ve been explaining all along. And part of being with Jesus is also being one with His Body, the Church, which we also need. Being a Christian is not a private, individualistic thing, but a true communion, believers united as one with the Father through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Moving on to your comment about Mary:

It grieves me when I read about people "consecrating themselves to Mary" (a type of the RCC). To consecrate oneself to a creature is very unwise. Jeremiah warns about the women who consecrated themselves to the "Queen of Heaven." Jer. 7:18, Jer. 44:17. John Paul II's motto: "Mary, I'm all yours" sends chills down my spine. It is base idolatry. Jesus, I'm all yours!

Once again, Inspector, you show remarkable ignorance of Catholicism for someone who “studies Catholic documents” (which I doubt you really do), and I suppose is why you are so susceptible to this obvious anti-Catholic “spin” (to borrow Dennis’ phrase above) about Mary.

The “queen of heaven” figure in Jeremiah is a reference to Ashtoreth, a false goddess of the Canaanites. She was a goddess of fertility and sexuality, and was worshiped in obscene rites.

For this reason, it hardly follows that Catholics would equate Mary, the pre-eminent figure of sexual purity and chastity for Catholics, with the obscene Ashtoreth (and by the way, it’s really insulting to Jesus Himself to speak of His mother that way – basically calling his mother a whore). Rather, the Catholic title “Queen of Heaven” is a reference to the woman in Rev. 12, crowned with 12 stars (symbolic of the 12 Apostles), and about to give birth: an obvious figure of Mary, and also of the Church, the Bride of Christ who gives birth to new believers through the gospel.

If you think about it, you realize that Mary is the first Christian, the first to believe in the gospel, the Word made flesh, and the first evangelist, the first to bring the Word to others – because she literally birthed him into the world. Without Mary’s faith and consent, you wouldn’t even have a savior.

No, the only people who equate Mary with Ashtoreth are Protestants (and you can find their insulting screed against the beautiful mother of Christ all other over the web), in violation of scripture, which calls Mary blessed and tells us that we are to do the same (Lk 1:42, 45, 48b). And because she is Jesus’ mother and Jesus is our brother, she is also our mother, the mother of all believers – in which case, according to the Ten Commandments, we are to honor her (Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother).

But this does not mean Mary is a goddess. She’s not, she’s human, a creature, as you point out. So why should anyone consecrate themselves to her?

Well, first of all, no one has too. Consecration to Mary is a private devotion, not a part of the official doctrine of the Church, which people are free to do or not do, as they see fit.

But if they do, it in no way conflicts with Christ, or contradicts Him, but rather is for His sake. Mary, like all members of the Body, has a role, which she continues in heaven: to bring Christ to people and people to Christ, and to intercede for us (as she interceded for the newlyweds at Cana, who had run out of wine). Being consecrated to Mary is to be consecrated to her mission, to share in her mission of bringing Christ to the world, for the sake of His Kingdom and the salvation of souls, and for the good of the Body, building it up through intercessory prayer, as Mary intercedes before the throne of God in heaven. Closer union with Mary, a member of the Body and the mother of the Body, is closer union with Christ. For that matter, closer union with any member of the Body is closer union with Christ!

As for John Paul II, if you really paid attention to him you’d know that he was probably one of the best evangelists for Christ to ever come along, and preached Christ constantly. In his seminal document on teaching the faith, called “catechesis” in the Catholic Church, he taught that all such teaching is aimed at one thing: “the definitive aim of catechesis is to put people not only in touch but in communion, in intimacy, with Jesus Christ.” (Catechesi Tradendae, 5)

When he said “Totus tuus!” he meant, “one with you, the mother of our Body, and sharing your mission, which is the mission of Christ, the redeemer of man!” Which he naturally would be, as Pope, head of the Body on earth, dedicated to preaching and spreading the gospel, which is hardly an idolatrous thing to do.




02/23/08--12:05: Aimee commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

Very good letter, Tertium, thanks for sharing it.

I like the points in the last two paragraphs best: The Church is able to diversify without breaking up (or compromising doctrine); and she is able to correct herself over time without breaking up. Signs of the Holy Spirit, it you ask me!




02/23/08--12:05: Inspector Fruiteau commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

A couple of more clarifications:

Aimee, you state: The Church does not speak of being “converted twice.” Actually, the Catechism uses those words (1427-1428). "Baptism is the principal place for the first and fundamental conversion...This [Christ's call to conversion] second conversion is an uninterrupted task for the whole Church..."

You use Philippians 2:12 to support that you must be sanctified in order to be justified. This verse must be taken in context with the next verse (and the entire book of Philippians). The next verse states that "it is God who is at work in you, BOTH TO WILL AND TO WORK... You see, it is God who provides the power not only to do the work, but also provides the will in us to do so. Eph. 2:10 also brings this out, calling us "God's workmanship" created for good works, which God provides beforehand.

Justification is a completed event for the believer, as the verb tenses show. In Rom. 5:1, Paul states: "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

Why is salvation entirely the work of God, and not a result of works? Eph. 2:9 - so that no one may boast. God uses His holy law to bring His children into relationship with Him. The law is our tutor to lead us to Christ (Gal. 3:24). Then, after we have been justified, we obey the law not out of obligation, but out of gratitude for having been justified, and adopted into God's family.

By the way, I am quite familiar with Catholic teaching, having spent 34 years learning my Catholic faith. Luther was Catholic, Calvin was Catholic. These were not men who were ignorant of the Catholic teachings and traditions. I use and study Catholic source documents. I am far from ignorant about Catholicism.

I encourage you to be noble minded like the Bereans, and search the Scriptures, and use them as your authority. It is the Governor, not the Pope, who is infallible when speaking.

Concerning my website being deceptive, I would appreciate your comments (offline please) so that I can address any concerns you may bring to my attention. My goal is not to be deceptive, but straightforward with the Gospel.

Thank you for engaging in discussions with me.





02/23/08--12:05: Maryellen commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

Aimee I loved this post. Your explanation was helpful to me because, although I accept the doctrine of infallibility, I'm at a loss for words to defend it.

I learned so much from the clarity of the comments your friends left in response to the nameless fruit inspector. It's been quite an education for this poorly catechized but enthusiastic Catholic. I also once stood where the Inspector stands. There is no wrath like a former Catholic turned anti-Catholic. I will keep him in my prayers.
Blessings
Maryellen




02/23/08--12:05: ELC commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

To set the record straight, for the "Inspector" and others... the Bible doesn't teach anything. Yep, you read that right: the Bible doesn't teach anything. To put it another way, the Bible teaches nothing.

Nothing. Not anything. Nothing. At. All.

Why?

Because the Bible is a book, not a teacher.

Many, many people use the Bible to teach others, rightly or wrongly. Some use the Bible to teach themselves, rightly or wrong.

But the Bible does not teach anything, because it cannot, because it is a book not a teacher.

Frankly, anybody who doesn't understand that about the Bible doesn't understand anything about the Bible. Which is, unfortunately, quite in evidence.




02/23/08--12:05: Aimee commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

Jeff: Nice work. Thanks!

I would add: infallibility, though only recently formally defined, has always been implicit in the concept of authority in the Church. God guides His Church infallibly and authoritatively, and always has, through the Magisterium. The formal definition arose in response to certain needs of the times, which is the case with formal definitions of doctrine.




02/23/08--12:06: David H. Lukenbill commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

Great comment Tertium, and I also like the point about the development of an apostolate rather than a new denomination, something called for by the Church which continually enriches her.

The apostolate is defined in the CCC as : "The activity of the Christian which fulfills the apostolic nature of the whole Church by working to extend the reign of Christ to the entire world." (p. 867)

Virtually all laity who are involved in blog work, nonprofit work, or any work with a Catholic focus, are on the apostolate path.





02/23/08--12:06: Jeff Tan commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

The Inspector says, "In his bull "Qui quorundam" (1324), Pope John XXII denounced Peter Olivi's proposed doctrine of Papal infallibility as "the work of the devil."

My two cents is to actually look at the bull, Quia Quorundam, which is online here:

http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bullarium/qquor-e.html

It's hard reading because of the style of writing, but my take on it is that, while Peter Olivi (or his followers) were proclaiming their rigorous rule of poverty as having an infallible stamp of approval from previous pontiffs, Pope John XXII was claiming otherwise: He is denying that their rule of poverty, which they base on the complete poverty of Our Lord and his Apostles, is a matter of faith and morals:

"Indeed this does not pertain directly to faith, since concerning this [matter] there is not any article, .. in which the articles of the faith are contained, nor even remotely, unless this be contained in sacred scripture, by which[,] having been denied[,] all sacred scripture is reduced to doubts, and by consequence[,] the articles of faith, which have been proven by means of sacred scripture, are reduced to doubts and uncertainties. For this cannot be in regard to sacred scripture, but the contrary is discovered [to be the case]."

I think the pontiff was saying "No, that matter (about complete poverty) is not about faith, since it is not contained in any article of faith declared by past pontiffs, and it is not contained in Scripture either."

The matter was largely a political one concerning Church and state, with one side stating that all authority as well as property were owned by the state. In any case, this particular bull was in response to the claim that the rigorous view of poverty for the Franciscans and the Church as a whole was binding, having been confirmed by past pontiffs. The bull mentioned simply states that the past confirmations were not concerning faith and morals to begin with, being exclusive to the Franciscan rule. The pope was not condemning papal infallibility, but rather the claim that infallibility applies to the Franciscan rule of absolute poverty which was favored by the Fraticelli faction in the Franciscan order.

It appears that this bull has been waved about as a solid proof that the doctrine of infallibility is false, and that popes do contradict each other. All this proves is that we can all be quick to seize any ammo that confirms our preconceived notions, without a thorough and prayerful study prior to making conclusions. We all do this from time to time, but I find that prayer and recourse to the Holy Spirit dulls the edge of prejudice.




02/23/08--12:06: David H. Lukenbill commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

One can find many apparent contradictions within the institutional Church over the two thousand years of its history.

One can also find many strange stories, myths, and slanderous action directed towards it by its enemies.

What defends it is its truth, built on the rock of Peter, and the gates of hell have not prevailed against it.

What defends it is the continual flow of leaders from the non-Catholic religious community entering the path home to Rome, and becoming some of it most ardent catechists.

What defends it are the prayers and blessing of its over one billion members.

Praying for all who are lost to be found and sending blessings to all who are suffering that they might find comfort.





02/23/08--12:06: Memphis Aggie commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

Hi Aimme,

I know this is an old thread but I thought I'd add a little something from today's gospel Matthew 20: 17-19. In this reading the mother of the sons of Zebedee asks Jesus for special placement in the kingdom of Heaven. In addition to a lesson on humility and exaltation. There's this directly from Christ:" but to sit at my right and at my left, this is not mine to give, but is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father." In other words God the Father choose Peter and made this choice known to God the Son through Peter's answer, which you quoted. I think it adds a layer of authority to Peter and dovetails nicely with "For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."




02/23/08--12:06: Aimee commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

That's funny! And I can see your point. But it's not true, you know.

Here's the truth, from the teaching office of the Church:

The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." (from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #107; quoting Vatican I Dei Verbum)

So, according to the Church, the scriptures do teach.

And scripture teaches of itself that it is not just a book, but the living, active word of God: “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (Heb 4:12)

Why? Because the word of God is the WORD of God, Christ Himself, Word made flesh, and incarnate in scripture - revealed in scripture. Scripture is Revelation: of God! For that reason, the Catechism also teaches:

Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely … For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body. (CCC 102-103)

The job of the Magisterium, the teaching office of the Church, in relation to scripture? Interpretation of scripture, as its servant. More from the same horse’s mouth:

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

"Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith." (CCC 85-86; also quoting Dei Verbum)

But again, I see your point. When people take the bible out of context and try to teach apart from the teaching office of the Church, they can get it wrong, because the Holy Spirit doesn’t give the charism of correct interpretation to everyone, but only to the authorities that Christ placed in His Church, whom we are to obey. And if we teach, we should teach in union with them.

Thanks for visiting!




02/23/08--12:06: Jeff Tan commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

Thanks to everyone's posts here. I have learned a lot!




02/23/08--12:07: Dennis Martin commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

One more point, Inspector, just think for a moment of the consequences that would follow if the Church is not infallible (indefectible).

We have no source of information about Christ, what he said and did, what he claimed about himself, from outside the Church. The histories of the time have only a few vague lines.

Now, if the Church is not trustworthy (infallible) in her custody of the story of what Jesus of Nazareth did or did not do, above all, in the custody of the claim that he claimed to be God incarnate (to forgive sins) and that he rose from the dead, then all bets are off. We'd have no way to know whether he even claimed to forgive sins or whether he rose from the dead.

And then Christianity is over. Period.

If the Church is merely fallible in her custody of the Story, then there's no way to know what happened back then. Unless . . .

Unless you make historians infallible. But they disagree with each other. They give us countless "real Jesus" stories, none of which agree with each other and each of which simply reflects the reigning ideas of the historian and the age in which he wrote it.

Surely you don't want to trust the infalliblity of historians.

But if the Church's custody of the story went wrong, was fallible (and that's the heart of Luther's and Calvin's and all Protestants' claims--that the Church's version of what happened was fallible, false, apostate, "an invention of men") then who gets to decide what the "True Story" is? It's easy enough to declare the story as it was told for centuries "fallible" and wrong, papist distortion etc.

But once you've done that, you have two choices:

(1) conclude that no one, including my group, can ever know what happened, we are all fallible, there's no way to know what happened from Christ through the apostles and down through the centuries; if that's the case (if that's infallibly true) then Christianity is over.

or

(2) you give to your group the very infallibility in its reading of "True History" the same infallibility you took away from the "papist-apostate" church. But then you've made your group infallible.

If your group is not infallible, there's really not much point in belong to it, but if it's infallible, then your quarrel is not with the possibility of infallibility in itself but rather with which group possesses it--the Bishop of Rome's group (that's what Catholicism is) or Luther's group or Calvin's group or Aimee Semple McPherson's group or John MacArthur's group or Purpose-Driven-Groups?

Now most Protestants claim all groups are fallible but Scripture is infallible. But of course, that's exactly the problem. Scripture doesn't interpret itself. If it did, we'd all agree and there'd have been no divisions and fragmenting. We'd all instantly see The True Interpretation of the Bible and be happily in agreement with each other.

But we aren't. Period. So unless fragmentation is what Jesus expected (John 17 seems to say he absolutely insisted on unity), there has to be a way to resolve disputes over interpretation of Scripture.

So we are back to which group's interpretation is infallible. If none of them are infallible, if all are fallible, then the Bible is worthless and Christianity is a joke. If one of them is infallible, then I'd want to find out which one and join it. I'd certainly not say, "I don't care which one is the infallible one" if I truly thought one was. And so if I adhere to one of them, I'd be saying that I think it is the one with the True Interpretation, the infallible one.

What I wouldn't do is simply say that Infallibility itself is the problem; if we get rid of that, our problems are over. Because if we get rid of infallibility for any group, we get rid of the possibility of ever knowing the true interpretation of the account of Jesus's life and claims, namely, the Bible.




02/23/08--12:07: Aimee commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

Nice insight. Thanks!

You know, I'm taking a course on the Pentateuch now, and there are some lessons there as well. God gave His original commandments to Adam, who transmitted them to Eve later (we assume, as Eve hadn’t been created yet). But the serpent put doubt and mistrust in Eve's mind regarding what she had heard from Adam about God - and she decided to take matters into her own hands, become her own authority, become "like God." And the result was disastrous for the whole human race.

The same thing happened later, when God gave His Commandments to Moses, who transmitted them to Aaron and the people. Aaron and the people lost faith and fell into the idolatry of the golden calf.

When Jesus came, he chose the Apostles, and said to them, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (Lk 10:16) And yet how many today have rejected the Apostles and refused to listen to them, by rejecting their chosen successors, whom they chose with authority given by Christ Himself?

The issue, which becomes more clear to me over time, is trust, especially trust in authority, which boils down to trust in God. Do we really trust God and believe that He is able to control and guide His Church through chosen men, including in the difficult times predicted by scripture (see 2 Peter for an example), or not? Do we believe that He is able to reveal things to designated leaders, or not? Or do we believe that God is a weakling, unable to guide His Church, untrustworthy, and we must take matters into our own hands? But then we fall into same trap that Eve did, fall for the lie of Satan who twisted God’s words and made them seem the opposite of what they mean.

Twisting the meaning of God’s words, and so directly or indirectly making God Himself appear untrustworthy, is one of the key ways that Satan works. He did it in the garden, he did it in the desert with Jesus (or tried to), and he does it today, causing people to reject the authority God gave to the Church, and causing unending discord and division among Christians over the very meaning of scripture itself.





02/23/08--12:12: David H. Lukenbill commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

I also came through various Protestant denominations on my journey home to Rome and the one element that seemed to characterize most of them was a general, though mostly hidden until you penetrated deeply, sense that the Catholic Church was the problem Protestantism arose to solve.

Considering that the foundation of Protestant faith came from protesting the faith of fifteen centuries of Catholicism, this is not surprising, but it is deeply and sadly embedded.

However, Protestants, like all religious people, are seekers after truth beyond whatever anger or resentment they may feel towards the Church of Rome or our Pope, and it is that seeking that we as Catholics can love and try in whatever way we can, to provide the truth of Christ clearly, resolutely, and lovingly.

In your response Aimee, you did that wonderfully.





11/14/08--06:25: Aimee commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

I've been away all afternoon and evening helping a friend with a baby, a live-in arthritic mother-in-law, and a husband out of town on business pack to move out of state, and just got back and found this exchange.

First, thank you, Dennis, for that. Your scholarly contributions are always welcome here, and very useful, coming from a professional historian. And thank you, David, for your kind remarks.

Now: Inspector:

I see I don't need to trouble to explain the "contradiction" of Vatican I, which was no contradiction at all, because Dennis has already done so.

However, I would point out that even if the "sinister intrigue" you insinuate were true (which it is not), it would only confirm what I have been explaining: that Papal Infallibility is not dependent on the sinlessness of Church leaders, who are fallible men. It is an expression of the infallibility of God, who supernaturally guides His Church on matters of doctrine according to His will, and whom we can trust to do so.

Regarding your remark about “Bishops representing 80 million Catholics,” as if somehow the desires of 80 million Catholics were thwarted, please understand: Bishops do not represent their faithful. They are shepherds and leaders of the faithful, whom the faithful are to obey on matters of faith and morals, which is the biblical model.

Your remark, however, betrays another way in which Protestantism has departed from the bible: most Protestant congregations today hire and fire their own pastors. That turns the biblical model, and biblical authority, on its head. In the bible, the Apostles chose their own successors, and sent them to congregations. It still happens that way in the Catholic Church, in a direct line going back to the original Apostles. It is Protestants who broke from the biblical model, when men began proclaiming and anointing themselves leaders, and then congregations started electing their own leaders, rejecting and usurping the authority established by God.

You know, when it comes to slanderous accusations, the Protestant world is not immune. Protestant leaders have and continue to be caught in all kinds of scandals, especially financial and sexual. I have experienced some of them first-hand in former congregations, and could fill your ears with details not fit to be put in print. Does this make all of Protestantism, and all Protestant leaders, evil? Of course not. Men are sinful. That is why we need to be saved.

And as I said, scandal, or any kind of disagreement, tends to cause Protestant congregations to fall apart. But the Catholic world remains united, and grows – as we are supposed to as Christians. Which world, Inspector Fruiteau – inspector of fruit – is demonstrating the fruit of unity, the real oneness that Jesus commanded on His last night on earth?

Vatican I is a false target. Your sources are unreliable – and your “arguments” tiresomely predictable, whether you realize it or not, as Dennis rightly pointed out. Again, I invite you to investigate real Catholicism, from reliable Catholic sources. And I’m always happy to answer genuine questions, if you have any.

I close with a quote from the council of Vatican II:

In His goodness and wisdom God chose to reveal Himself and to make known to us the hidden purpose of His will (see Eph. 1:9) by which through Christ, the Word made flesh, man might in the Holy Spirit have access to the Father and come to share in the divine nature (see Eph. 2:18; 2 Peter 1:4). Through this revelation, therefore, the invisible God (see Col. 1;15, 1 Tim. 1:17) out of the abundance of His love speaks to men as friends (see Ex. 33:11; John 15:14-15) and lives among them (see Bar. 3:38), so that He may invite and take them into fellowship with Himself. ... By this revelation then, the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines out for our sake in Christ, who is both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation. (Dei Verbum, I.2)

Pretty terrible, isn't it? Go study some real Catholicism, Inspector. It's quite beautiful - and thoroughly based on scripture.




01/07/09--19:08: Eli commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

I'm really bumping this topic but something struck me with what you said. Mainly I think it was error. You mention that in Revelation 12 that it seems to be talking about Mary and the twelve stars were the Apostles. Well, is that Catholic teaching? My Bible says that it's actually the 12 tribes of Israel. The woman being a symbol of the Messianic community. Granted, I'm Protestant and I don't use a Catholic Bible so I'm sure the commentary will be different. I do find the things you say interesting though and am drawn to the Catholic faith. I just need to reconcile myself to a lot of things it seems. Probably due to being raised a certain way and having a Protestant Pastor as a father. Anti-Catholicism comes easy. I will continue to look into it though. Because honestly, if anyone is in error it's probably me. Since it's almost been a year since the last message I'm not sure if you'll even check read this but hopefully you will. If not I'll just message you directly to engage in dialog.




01/08/09--17:05: aimee commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

Actually, both of the interpretations you mention can be true, because there are many levels of meaning to scripture. The woman also represents the Church, of which Mary is a figure, giving birth to Christ in souls. It's very rich.

I can understand about anti-Catholicism, because I was in an anti-Catholic denomination, made some waves when I began my conversion process (though thankfully my parents aren't anti-Catholic - and they like the changes they see in me since my conversion). At least you're honest, and honestly inquiring!




04/03/09--20:42: Jae commented on 'Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's' (chan 1097419)

Aimee,

Your arguments are solid and makes a lot of sense even if one is not a catholic.

Thanks for your love to the true Church of God and your conversion story.

To my protestant brothers, I'll say, "don't leave Peter because of Judas".

"....where Peter is there is the Church"

May Jesus the Fount of Mercy always bless you.