The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Papal Infallibility..Catholic Definition

"He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent me." Luke10:16 (all quotes from the NKJV)

"However, when He, the Spirit of Truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth, for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you the things to come."
John 16:13

"..I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth."

"I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

Also Jesus sets this precident Himself by teaching His disciples that the Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses and therefore had religious authority. In this light, it's not really a stretch of the imagination that there would also be "the seat of Peter."

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? (KJV)

The Church is the foundation of truth, again, not by her own virtue, but because the Holy Spirit keeps her free from error.

Papal infallibility is also rooted in precident. Even Protestants won't deny the Peter spoke infallibly in his address to the apostles (Acts 1:15) and his sermon following Pentecost (Acts 2:14-39). He then went on to write infallibly two epistles.

Peter's innappropriate conduct in Antioch does not subtract from the fact that he infallibly wrote two epistles that are found in today's Bible.

But are the Popes really the successors of Peter? Yes! The apostolic succession began with the appointment of Mathias in Acts, clearly indicating that the Apostolic age would go on and never die.

The belief in papal infallibility can only stem from a belief that Christ established a church (not a Bible) and endowed her with teaching authority.

Because Protestants don't believe in a Church with authority of it's own, the idea of ecclesiastical infallibility is alien to them.

As for me, my trust in Christ's Church is de facto my trust in the Holy Spirit who guides her, and my trust in Christ who established her and endued her with teaching authority in regards to doctrine and all matters of life.

While the first one is in scripture you misinterpret the text.

Please take note that the latter notion, a "seat of Peter", simply is not in scripture.

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, "why do ye also trangress the commandment of God by your tradition?"

Based upon a faulty interpretation shown here...

Sorry. The passage simply shows a new apostle was picked Apostolic succession as a necessity for truth to remain requires eisegesis.

False. Strawman. I and several others I know hold to the belief the church has always been represented on earth. We just don't believe that Rome is the sole representative of that nor the infallible authority governing such.

33,000 denominations later....

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.
13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?
15 "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles;
16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
17 "But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be!
18 "For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor.
19 "For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.
20 "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
21 "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

In regards to 33,000 denominations, that's the current number that's given to Catholics.

Thank you for your referrences, Ma'am. I know all the arguments against Peter the Rock, and they fall flat.

catholicsoldier said:
Sorry yourself. Maybe you should actually read the passage. The apostle was picked to replace Judas, indicating incontrovertably that succession was a must. But you just don't want to see it.

(from pp. 34-37)As (St. Peter's Basilica) returns to normal, it is tempting to ask: If Peter were to arise from his tomb under the dome and be told that all this was erected in his honor, how would he react?
...The only fair question is: If Peter came back as a pilgrim, how would he judge what goes on
in the Vatican by the standards of the Gospel.

Jesus was born in a stable. In his ministry, he had nowhere to lay his head. Today, his Vicar inhabits a palace with eleven thousand rooms. And then there is Castelgandalfo, overlooking
the Alban Lake where pontiffs go to escape the summer heat. Beautiful Castelgandolfo, slightly larger than the Vatican, is there John Paul, at some cost, had a swimming pool built for personal use.  Jesus renounced possessions. He constantly taught: "Go, sell all thou hast and give to the
poor, then some and follow me." He preached doom to the rich and powerful. "Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, He said, where neither rust nor moth can spoil it. 

Christ's Vicar lives surrounded by treasures, some of pagan origin. Any suggestion that the
pope should sell all he has and give to the poor is greeted with derision as impractical. The rich young man in the gospel reacted in the same way. Throughout his life, Jesus lived simple; he
died naked, offering the sacrifice of his life on the cross.  When the pope renews that sacrifice
at pontifical high mass, no grater contrast could be imagined. Without any sense of irony, Christ's Vicar is clad in gold and the costliest silks.

This has often been a source of scandal. For example, in the fourteenth century, the great Petrarch described a papal mass in Avignon which was far less splendid than the recent ceremony at St. Peter's. "I am astounded," Petrarch wrote, 'as I recall the pope's predecessors, to see these men loaded with gold and clad in purple. We seem to be among the kings of the Persians or the Parthians, before whom we must fall down and worship. O apostles and early popes, ye unkempt and emaciated old men, it is for this ye labored?"

Jesus only title was given him by Pilate in mockery: "King of the Jews." In the Pontifical Yearbook, Peter sees the pope has a dozen glorious titles, including State Sovereign. he would find Pontifex Maximus the most surprising, for in his time that was the title of the pagan high priest of Rome. Besides, Jesus was only a layman.  The pope's aides also have titles somewhat unexpected in the light of the Sermon on the Mount: Excellency, Eminence, Your Grace, My Lord, illustrious One, Most Reverend, and so on.

However, the cardinal's hats that once brought in millions to the papal coffers are now handed over free of charge. But still their Eminences dress like royalty, even if their trains have been cut back recently by several yards. Impressions do matter. Those who dress in purple silk, live in palaces,
sit on thrones- it is not easy for them to represent the Poor Man of Nazareth to the poor and starving of the world.

Only twice has John Paul called his cardinals together. Each time it was to discuss the parlous
state of Vatican finances.  Peter, always penniless, would be intrigued to know that according to canon 1518 of the 1917 code his successor is "the supremeadministrator and manager of all church properties." And that the Vatican has its own bank to which clients are only admitted if, in addition to sound references, they can provide something Peter himself never had: a baptismal certificate. 
The celibacy of the clergy, popes included, might also surprise Peter, seeing that Jesus chose him, knowing he was married.

Peter would finally be staggered at the sheer number of images in St. Peter's. He and his Master,
as Jews, were opposed to religious images. God, whose very name could not be uttered, could not be represented, either. Reverence for One who dwells in inaccessible light demands the utmost reticence. Even the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem temple was but a bare dark room.  In St.
Peter's, Jesus is crucified at every altar. The basilica is decorated with statues of kneeling and reclining popes. Some figured and less than edifying. Pope Paul III, for instance, lies buried in
the apse. His monument is adorned with reclining beauties, one of whom is Justice. Originally
naked, she was fitted with a metal chemise, painted to look like the original marble, at the command of Pius IX. His Holiness had discovered that the model for Justice was Paul III's sister Giulia, the mistress of Pope Alexander VI. 

Peter attended the simple ceremony of the Supper on the night before Jesus died. He knew that
on that rock knoll outside Jerusalem, Jesus, previously reviled, scourged, spat upon, his head crowned with thorns, was stripped naked and crucified between two thieves.  What connection, if any, Peter would wonder, is there between those events and a papal mass? Has all this pageantry distorted and trivialized the message of Jesus? How and by what tortuous paths has a small persecuted community traversed the seemingly infinite distance between Calvary and the Vatican?

(from pp. 34) Decades passed. The bishop of Rome became increasingly important, especially when the
Imperial Court was transferred to Constantinople in the 4th century. That left an enormous political, administrative and emotional gap. The Bishops of Rome were on hand, so to speak, to fill it. From this time on, the Bishops of Rome started to separate Peter from Paul, and applied to themselves
the promises made in the gospel to Peter. Such was not the prestige of the Bishop of Rome that scholars searched the scriptures for texts that would underpin his role as civil leader and patriarch of the West. What would be neater than to apply texts which in the gospels refer only to Peter, to
the bishop who rules in the city where Peter died? 

The gospels did not create the papacy; the papacy, once in being, leaned for support on the gospels. This support did not come easily; it required skill to take statements made by a poor Carpenter to an equally poor Fisherman and apply them to a regal pontiff who was soon to be called Lord of the World.

Offer something besides opinion, or I'm going to start editing your posts for content.....because that claim is a lie.

Act 1:21-22, ESV. "So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us--one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."