objections to papal infallibility


#1

Protestant doctrine doesn’t allow for infallibility of a human being when it comes to teaching Gods word. But the writers of the inerrant word of God were humans.

Questions:

Do you believe they were infallible in their teachings of Gods word?

Were they infallible also in their oral teachings of God’s word or only in their written teachings?

Is it possible that God can protect a person now from teaching error in order to preserve Gods word in its original intent in an ever changing world?


#2

I asked a similar question before too, phrased very much like your questions…

Ultimately, if Christians can believe that God used erring humans as penmen, but that God nonetheless superintended them as they wrote, keeping them from all error

then…

Why can’t these same Christians believe as Catholicism does that God also used erring humans as church leaders, but that God nonetheless superintended them as they taught, keeping them from all error too?

To be fair, I haven’t actually heard a good answer to this question. And, more to the point, many do not actually believe, in practice, that God cannot superintend their own church leaders.

In fact, everytime they claim to have the correct interpretation of the Scriptures, they are, in effect, contradicting their own claims of Sola Scriptura and basically stating that they believe their own Church has been superintended by God and kept free from error.

All Christians actually do believe their own church has been superintended by God and kept free from error-- whether they like to admit this or not. So exactly why this would be a sticking point for some groups makes absolutely no sense to me.

I’ve yet to hear a good answer as to why they do not believe this to be true.


#3

My opinion is your mixing issues

  1. Are humans errant? Yes an always even when delivering God’s message.

  2. Thus the message of God must contain error? No even an errant human does not only error but also performs correctly most of the time.

  3. Is the bible perfectly written (Infallible)? In meaning yes in translation no. Jesus spoke in parables the meaning is in the parable yet human can and do misunderstand. Similarly the comments about Jesus’ bothers are correct, in some forms of the word brother but they are not biological b rothers born with same DNA

  4. Papal infallibility - One of the most miss understand issues in Catholism. Used twice in 2000 years (Immaculate Conception, and the assumption of Mary). The problem is the mixing of this with - *Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”(Matthew 16)- *So you are to follow the Pope even when he speaks on issues which are not covered by infalliablity.

  5. Magisterium - teaching body of the church which organizes maintans and distributes the Catholic teachings and thus is delivering the rules on what is “bind and loose”

Hope that helps


#4

Who are you talking too?

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp


#5

#6

I would be tempted to boil this issue down to two questions:

Is human weakness greater than God’s strength?

Did the Holy Spirit run out of steam after Revelation was written? Did He just lose interest?


#7

I agree a lot with this. The two positions seem to be divided amongst whether God can overcome human frailty or not. I would argue with an unequivocal yes to this question-- what God has promised will certainly not fail.

This leads toward happygal’s response in my opinion.

[quote=happygal]God can superintend everyone, but whether one allow themselves to do according to God’s will that is another question. If without God’s superintending who your Pope depend upon?? Himself to led the entire congregration.??
[/quote]

No and no.

I thought I had made this clear that without the Holy Spirit there is no guarantee for doctrinal purity.

What I find odd is that is that many who seem to be unwilling to accept that God has promised to clearly guide his Church without error still seem to believe that they are nonetheless guaranteed salvation in Christ.

In other words, they seem to be undermining their own claim to salvation whenever they insist that God has never guaranteed to clearly guide their church without error.

[quote=happygal]Well I’m from a non denomination church, everytime my Pastor will mentioned we are not a perfect church and people, but we try our best to be one.
[/quote]

But that’s, to some extent, no different from the Catholic faith.

Many Catholics such as myself readilly admit that we are sinful and in need of Christ’s forgiveness. Infallible does not mean impeccable. The difference seems to be on the matter of the Holy Spirit’s ability to guide the Church infallibly or not.

If someone does not have this guarantee of doctrinal purity, then how can they know for sure if they are indeed guaranteed salvation as thier church claims?

I think positve answers to questions like these do indicate that these denominations actually do believe that their church must have some kind of concept of a guarantee for doctrinal purity.

If not, then how do they know for ceretain that they are guaranteed their salvation in Christ?

[quote=happygal]But most protestant use the bible as a Source in our Sunday preaching, but depending on individual churches preaching , i never deny that they some which are really the extreme out from the majority in their believes. Thus i alwayscompare what my church teaching against the Catholic teaching which i find nothing you believe is not what i don’t believe…
[/quote]

Hmmm…that’s interesting. Could you expand on this a bit.

I’m honestly not sure if I’m understanding this correctly and would like to clarify a few things before I respond.

[quote=happygal]Yup we can never claim anything wrong about individual believes as we are not suppose to judge other’s faith. However i do agree with you that it seem strange to others, why some believes A, others believes B…etc…etc…but it is ourself who are comparing against with others why they cannot believe what i believe…blar…blar…then we start to find any possible ways to convince that their is not entirely correct…blar…blar…but come to think of it, if God choose to reveal why this thing happens, then probably we won’'t even need to stand here defend our own believe system.
[/quote]

That’s not entirely accurate though. If God’s revelation were that clear, he would not have needed set up a church to guarantee that people understand what he means.

The problem is that the Scriptures can be misunderstood, that’s why God has maintained a living connection to the past to guarantee that the Scriptural record does not become distorted.

One could even point towards the Sacred Traditions and the Magisterium of the Church, essentially inversing the Scriptural record, in order to display that people cannot practice or teach something which is contrary to Scripture either.

For example, if a pope were to rise up and say “only a certain race of people can be Catholics”, or something like “only women can be priests”, or something like “all believers in Christ are actually minor gods”, these things would blatently contradict both the Scriptural record and the previous magisterial teachings on this matter.

Of course, since the pope is guided by the Holy Spirit, he would never actually attempt to make any kind of official proclomation like the ones that I listed above in the first place.

In others, since he is guided by the Holy Spirit, he would never actually teach these things (nor would we expect him to teach these things in the future). And nothing taught as doctrine by the popes has actually contradicted itself, even when some popes were known to be rather despisable people morally speaking.

From the Catholic perspective, it is beleived that we need all three: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the the Magisterium-- all guided by the Holy Spirit.


#8

"Originally Posted by happygal
But most protestant use the bible as a Source in our Sunday preaching, but depending on individual churches preaching , i never deny that they some which are really the extreme out from the majority in their believes. Thus i alwayscompare what my church teaching against the Catholic teaching which i find nothing you believe is not what i don’t believe…"

they use the bible with what authority to teach from it? have they not read the scripture:

***Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, ***
for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.


#9

they use the bible with what authority to teach from it? have they not read the scripture:

***Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, ***
for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

******Hi There

I certainly agree that nobody should interpret the bible without the help of Holy Spirit. Thus for some refering back what the Pastor preached against the bible are to prevent any false hearing/teaching. Becoz we are all human (Pastor/Priest) and are vulnerable to mistakes. However one thing for sure is that Holy Spirit will guide either (Pastor/Priest) to teach his message accordingly. I do a comparison after attending both Mass and my church services and nothing are of different meaning, in fact on one occassion both churches message were the same. Just like a BINGO…Holy Spirit is so great!!******


#10

The original questions were:


Questions:

Do you believe they were infallible in their teachings of Gods word?

Were they infallible also in their oral teachings of God’s word or only in their written teachings?

Is it possible that God can protect a person now from teaching error in order to preserve Gods word in its original intent in an ever changing world?

A a Non-Catholic View:

Were the Apostles infallible in their teaching of God’s word? Yes, their writing and teaching were guided directly by the Spirit of God.

Were they infallible in their oral teachings? Yes, of course. Now, you’ll try and use that to support “Sacred Tradition,” am I right? How can you be sure that your “oral traditions” are the same today as they were 2,000 years ago? Tradition is molded with time and culture. If I am not mistaken, the selling of indulgences was once part of “Sacred Tradition?” I understand the the Church has recanted this tradition, but it was once declared Sacred Tradition, but the fact that it has been changed makes me wonder how secure the traditions are.

Next question: Is it possible that God can protect a person from teaching in error today? I think not. I believe God has protected his Word, the Bible, and I believe it is perfect and in the form he wanted it. There is much controversy over the Catholic bible vs the Protestant bible, and the books kept/taken out, however, I hold on to my faith that God has protected the bible, and the men that brought it into its current version, that being the form used by most Protestant churches, without the Macabbes and such.

I hope that answered your question, and I also hope you do not make personal attacks at my faith in your rebuttal.


#11

Look at what you said here, Titus:

Think about this for a second. Are you sure this is what you believe? I would be very surprised if you did. God can do anything, except contradict Himself.

I think not. I believe God has protected his Word, the Bible, and I believe it is perfect and in the form he wanted it. There is much controversy over the Catholic bible vs the Protestant bible, and the books kept/taken out, however, I hold on to my faith that God has protected the bible, and the men that brought it into its current version, that being the form used by most Protestant churches, without the Macabbes and such.

Why then was this form of the Bible not around until the 17th century?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.