Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's

A reader has written, a Protestant grappling with the relationship between authority and Papal infallibility in the Church, and we've had quite a correspondence about it.  He can accept the necessity of authority, but has difficulty accepting infallibility.  It's not an issue I was concerned about entering the Church, as it was was clear to me from the beginning that if I really trust Christ, then I also trust that He is in control of the Church He founded, and so I can trust the Church.  But it's not that easy for everyone, and my reader's questions have led me to grapple more deeply with the issue.  Here is my latest reflection, which I thought other readers might enjoy.  It's a bit long, so bear with me.

The relationship between authority and infallibility is the meat of the issue.  It is good that you see the importance of authority.  It is important to understand, however, that when it comes to the real Church founded by Christ, authority and infallibility are inseparable, because Church authority cannot work without infallibility.  It would become meaningless – it would simply, and rapidly, devolve into merely the opinions of men, with one asserting one thing and another asserting another, causing the rapid breakup of the church over disagreements, with different groups forming different camps. 

This is what has happened in the Protestant world, because Protestants rejected the Pope and the Magisterium, the sole source of infallibility for the Church.  Protestants take scripture as the sole rule of authority and consider it infallible – which it is – but scripture does not interpret itself, and in the absence of an authoritative, infallible interpreter, how can anyone know which interpretation is correct?  Who has the power to decide? 

No one does, so people disagree and divide, because there is no final, infallible interpreter in the Protestant world to interpret scripture and explain doctrine.  In practice, Protestant “authority” and interpretation really is just private judgment, and people group together with those they agree with – and change and go to a different church if they disagree – which is anti-scriptural on so many levels.

So, you ask, what makes the Catholic Church different?  Isn’t it just another man, or group of men, issuing their own private judgments, their own faulty opinions?

No, it’s not.  Authority in the Catholic Church is not and never has been the same as authority in the Protestant world.  It is important to understand that we are not talking about the authority of a man, the Pope, to assert his opinions as true above the opinions of other men.  The Pope is not really the one who decides matters of doctrine.  It is God who decides, through the office of the Pope; God, not man, who is guiding the Church in unfolding and explaining the meaning of the deposit of faith.  God is the interpreter of scripture and the One who settles matters of doctrine, and He does so infallibly through the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church. 

People can make the mistake of thinking of the Pope as the “boss” of the Church, but he’s not.  He and the Apostles, Bishops today, are not bosses; they are servants of God and stewards of His Church.  God inspired Peter and the Apostles to write the New Testament, and He continues to guide and inspire them in correctly interpreting scripture in the Church through the Holy Spirit.  It is God’s infallibility at work in the Church, not man's.  The Church belongs to God, and He is the One running it, through the men He has chosen to serve Him as stewards – keeping it on track despite all the ways that men can stray in history.

When I was a Protestant, I was taught that the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of scripture, which is correct.  However, it confused me, because I could not see how He could interpret one way through one person, and another way through another person, and both be right, because God is not a God of confusion.

As a Catholic, I now understand that the Protestant world has a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Holy Spirit works, and how God orders the Church.  He does not work to interpret scripture or doctrine through just anyone, and certainly not through everyone.  He works in many ways with many people, but when it comes to interpretation, either of scripture or of doctrine, He works only through the designated authorities of the Church, whom scripture tells us to obey.  Who are the designated authorities?  Peter and the Apostles, and their successors the Pope and the Bishops, in the valid Apostolic Succession through the laying on of the hands.

There is only one passage in the New Testament where Jesus clearly gives authority to another: Matt 16:13-19.  In this passage, Jesus asks who the disciples think he is, and they all give different answers.  He then asks Peter, who says, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”  Jesus replies,

"Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.  And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

God revealed to Peter alone a truth of the faith, the true identity of Christ, when the others were confused and divided.  That is the seed of Papal infallibility in scripture.

The passage is strikingly similar to Is 22:20-24:

In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.  And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.  And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house.  And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father's house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.

And to Rev. 3:7:

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: 'The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

Keys in scripture are symbolic of authority; the key of David symbolizes the authority of God.  The passage in Isaiah is in the context of usurping a former authority that wasn’t true to God, and establishing a new authority while the old is cut down (Isaiah was prophesying to Judah and Jerusalem, just prior to the Babylonian exile).  The passage in Revelation is clearly a reference to Christ, who is God Incarnate. 

So, in Matt 16:13-19, Jesus Himself, recognizing that God the Father has chosen Peter, gives him the keys to His own authority, the authority of God, and the power of binding and loosing that goes with it, in a clear allusion to Is 22.  The Isaiah background is the judgment of the Jews and the destruction of the Temple, which Jesus also prophesied.  Jesus was founding a new church in place of the Judaic Temple, and proclaiming a new leader, revealed by God the Father, in Peter.

Peter alone, and no other, was given a direct revelation by our Father in heaven of Christ’s identity, and so given the biblical keys of authority, the authority of God to bind and loose, make final decisions.  And it is not an arbitrary authority, but the authority of God to steer the Church to the truth in moments of man’s confusion, given to Peter alone.  That is why the Church defines the Magisterium as “The Pope and the Bishops in union with the Pope.”

It was our Father in heaven who chose Peter, Jesus who confirmed him, before the Holy Spirit later descended on him, turning him into the powerful leader and witness he became.  None of the other Apostles received this much special treatment.  Are you really willing to argue with the Trinity over their choice of a leader for the Church, and pooh-pooh their decision?

That is why today the symbol for the Pope includes two keys, but the Apostles have only one.  It symbolizes that their authority is complete only when in union with the Pope, because of the Pope’s union with God in the special charism given by God to recognize and protect the true faith.  And it hardly would work to protect the Church over the ages, if the gift had died with Peter.  Why would God have gone to the trouble, if He didn’t intend it to last?  Why would He write it into scripture, if He didn’t intend it to be a lasting thing?  The gift given to Peter, as with all charisms, continues to be given, to the appropriate member of the Body: Peter’s successor.

What were the Apostles given?

• At the Last Supper, Jesus tells the disciples, “This is my body …, this is my blood.  Do this in remembrance of me.”  This is the charism of consecrating the bread and wine, given only to the Apostles.

• At another point in the evening he tells them, “I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.  When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth … He will take what is mine and declare it to you.”  (Jn 16:12-15)  This is the promise of the Holy Spirit, who will guide them in correctly interpreting scripture and doctrine, so they can correctly preach and teach everyone else – also given only to the Apostles.

• Later, after His death and resurrection, Jesus breathes on the disciples and says, "Receive the Holy Spirit.  If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (Jn 20:22-23)  This, too, is a sacramental charism given only to the Apostles.

Consecrating, interpreting the faith correctly, forgiving sins.  These are unique charisms given by Christ to the Apostles, which from the beginning they handed on, and have always handed on, to their successors through the laying on of the hands.

In the book of Acts, at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit fell not only on the Apostles, but on everyone gathered there with them.  What power was given?  The power of witnessing, (Acts 1:8), which is shared by all believers.  And Paul later explains how the Holy Spirit also gives different gifts – but not all gifts are given to everyone.  The Body is ordered.  Only some are given certain gifts, not all.  And authority, God’s authority to interpret scripture and doctrine, matters of the faith, are given only to Peter and the Apostles, with Peter given final authority on matters of doctrine.

It is God’s authority, God’s infallibility at work in the Church, God acting and making His will clear, not men deciding according to their opinions.  In the Protestant mindset, God wrote the bible through men, and men follow the bible.  That is not how the early church worked, and is not how the Church works today.  Never has.  The doctrine Sola Scriptura would have confounded the early Christians.  Authority is not confined to the written word, nor does it actually come from the written word.  It comes from God, who guides the Church through the Pope and the Apostles, wrote and interprets the bible through them, develops and protects the understanding of doctrine through them, and guides the Church through them.  That’s how it’s always been.

Also please understand: doctrine develops, but it does not evolve, does not change from one thing to another.  Revelation is finished.  It is our understanding that is incomplete, which is why Jesus said “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.  When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (Jn 16:12-13); our understanding that is developing and growing, as an acorn into an oak tree. 

The Faith of the Catholic Church today is the faith of the early Church, is the faith of Jesus, is the faith of the bible - explained and interpreted correctly.  The mass, too, is the mass of the early Church: remarkably the same, which I can attest to, having studied the development of liturgy in the early Church.  Nothing, actually, has changed, except for our understanding of it and a few externals of practice; and our understanding has grown and will continue to grow and unfold, guided by the Holy Spirit who guides us into all truth, as Jesus said He would, the infinite truth of God, speaking and explaining His Revelation through the voice of the Magisterium.

God did not only act in distant history, and leave us only a book to follow, with only fallible men to try to figure out what the book really means – and so fail at what the book asks us to do, because we can’t agree on the meaning.  Infallibility is the lynchpin of authority and interpretation, and of unity, without which the former would be meaningless and the latter would fall apart.  All are a work of the Holy Spirit, all are God working directly in His Church to infallibly teach us, guide us, and keep us united as one.  He’s been doing it all along in the Catholic Church.

Which brings me to another related point: the nature of the Church.  The Protestant world has a very truncated view of the Church, as only a “mystical body” united in faith, though visibly fragmented.  But this is not the Church founded by Christ, and it is not the Church spoken of by scripture.

The real Church in its fullness truly is a single, living organism, united in faith and practice.  It is the Body of Christ, united as one through the Eucharist, His Body and Blood.  It has a single head on earth, the Pope, stewarded and guided by Christ in heaven, the real Head of the Body.  The Holy Spirit lives in the Church as His Temple, guiding her leaders and sanctifying her members.  It is a single organism, and God really is living and speaking and teaching in her midst and is really her Real Leader – without whom it would all fall apart.  In a very real way, the Church is God Incarnate on the earth.

This is why I say that, when it comes to matters of the faith, to trust the Church is to trust God, and not to trust the Church is to fail to trust God.  The Protestant Reformation was a massive failure of trust in God, trust that He is in control of His Church and knows what He is doing, and a massive usurpation of the authority of God Himself.  But it is a usurpation that failed.  Though God continues to save souls in the Protestant world, the Protestant world only becomes ever-more divided over time, and theology ever more debased, while the Catholic Church has recovered, grown stronger, gone on, and continued to grow and develop in ever more beautiful ways.

This is not to say that the members of the Church, including her leaders, are without sin.  There are saints and sinners in the Church, wheat and weeds, as promised by scripture, and it shows in her colorful history.  But it doesn’t mean the Church is not God's Church.  She belongs to God, and always recovers, due to God’s grace, and continues on.

I’ve been around both the Protestant world and the Catholic Church long enough now to notice a very curious thing: when there is controversy in the Protestant world, congregations tend to split up and go their separate ways.  I could tell stories about it.  It happened to my old church, when a scandal engulfed the pastor and huge numbers of the congregation left.  When controversy comes to the Catholic Church, however, she gets stronger.  A few may leave, but more stay, and more come in.  She always recovers and grows.  In the wake of the priest scandal, conversions to Catholicism in the US have increased: 100,000 entered the Church this year, an all-time high.  I think it’s because the Church really is the Body Christ, and her suffering is His suffering – which is redemptive: When I am lifted up, I will draw all people to myself (Jn 12:32).  People are drawn through the power of the cross – and perhaps this is the pruning of Christ in action.  Pruning always results in new growth, and makes a tree healthier.  And the Church is the great Tree of Christ, growing from all over the earth into heaven.

Do we limit God to only acting in heaven, and we just have to figure things out as best we can on earth, or do we grant that He really is infinite and all-powerful, and can act on the earth as well as in heaven, through the men He chooses?  Do I trust what Jesus said, that He would found his church upon the rock, and the gates of hell would not prevail against it, regardless of how things sometimes look?  Or am I a doubter, who runs away from the foot of the cross when Jesus appears defeated – when the Church His Body appears defeated – and so miss the joy of the resurrection, when He comes alive again?

I trust Him; that is why I became a Catholic.  That is why now, rather than trying to decide whether a doctrine is true or not, I instead accept it, and try to understand how it is true, trusting that it is coming from God, and not from men.  I no longer have the hubris to think that I can judge the deep things of God, when God has given me no authority to do so.  If there is a problem, the problem is with me, my ability to understand, not with the Church.

I close this reflection with this quote from an article on Papal Infallibility:

Often those who object to the doctrine of infallibility confuse it with impeccability or personal inerrancy.  It is neither.  Impeccability means that a person is incapable of sinning.  Popes, like other Christians, are sinners.  Personal inerrancy means that Popes cannot make mistakes.  Infallibility, on the other hand, refers to that guidance of the Holy Spirit that guards Popes from officially teaching error in matters of faith and morals. [italics mine]

It is a gift that I, for one, am extremely grateful.

Comments

[David H. Lukenbill]

This is where my decision to convert to Catholicism became set in stone, the issue of authority and infallibility.

As Jesus said:

18) And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19) And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Matthew 16: 18-19)

I see only three ways you can interpret this pronouncement: 1) Jesus lied, 2) it was incorrectly translated, or 3) the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus, Peter is its head on earth, and what Peter says is true.

And three is the magic number.

[Scott Lyons]

My decision too, Aimee. Thanks for posting it.

[Inspector Fruiteau]

According to the apostle John, it is the Holy Spirit who imparts infallible truth - and he imparts the truth to ordinary Christians (1 Jn. 2:27). They are anointed.

Part of the problem as I see it is the belief that the central message of the Bible is complex - it isn't. It is messy because of sin, no doubt about it. But where the Governor is working, truth is understood, and people are set free.

The Holy Spirit is the infallible teacher of the infallible truth of the Bible.

[Aimee]

Exactly, Inspector. And He does so infallibly through the Church, where we find the greatest freedom, for there is the fullest expression of the will of God. And yes, ordinary Christians share in the charism of infallibility – to the extent that they are in union with the Church. Disunity is not a work of the Holy Spirit - and disunity is the problem, not the "complexity" of the bible message, which is simple.

[Inspector Fruiteau]

Aimee, I question that the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church are infallibly correct. I also question whether Popes and Councils have not contradicted each other over the centuries.

Concerning dogma, the RCC condemns those who teach that one can be sure of salvation based upon belief in Jesus. I would contend that assurance is the essence of the Christian faith.

The Bible teaches that justification is an event, while the RCC teaches that it is a lifelong process that includes sanctification. In other words, a Protestant is converted once, a Catholic must be converted twice.

The Bible teaches that we have direct access to God, that Jesus is the only mediator. The RCC teaches that we must go through many mediators (Mary, the RCC, the priest, the Pope, the Saints, etc.)

The Bible teaches that salvation is monergistic. The RCC teaches that salvation is synergistic.

These are not minor differences, but rather result in two truly distinct religions. It is my understanding that the RCC has only infallibly interpreted a handful of Scripture verses, those that deal with the primacy of the RCC, and the sacraments. Are these all the verses that the Holy Spirit has interpreted for the Church?

[TwoCentsWorth]

Dear Aimee:THANK YOU! I was touched very deeply by the beauty, simplicity and very convincing biblical/theological exposition of papal infallibility: God's, not man's. I have gained new insights as to where the emphasis of papal infallibility should be placed: GOD, through the Holy Spirit, inspiring, teaching and guiding the Church, through the office of Peter, the pope and the bishops united with him. If it were possible, I would appoint you to head the USCCB's committee on ecumenism. You are a blessing to the Catholic Church in America and I thank God for you!

[Aimee]

TwoCents: Thank you for that almost overwhelmingly positive response. I'll try not to let it go to my head.

[Aimee]

Inspector, you said:

I question that the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church are infallibly correct.

Well, you’re certainly free to question. And I hope you continue questioning, until you arrive at the truth.

I also question whether Popes and Councils have not contradicted each other over the centuries.

Protestants often make that assertion, but it is based on a failure to understand the nature and context of different actions of the Church at different times. If you can send me specific examples, I can explain them to you - if you are really interested in learning about it.

Concerning dogma, the RCC condemns those who teach that one can be sure of salvation based upon belief in Jesus.

Actually, the Church teaches that salvation comes through faith in Jesus, and it does not condemn people who believe the doctrine of Sola Fide, but clearly teaches that Protestants can be saved as well. But she does condemn the doctrine itself, because it is unbiblical, only a partial truth, not based on the fullness of scripture.

The bible does not teach that we are saved by our faith alone, but that we are saved by the grace of God, through faith, which we then carry out through works. The grace of God works in many ways: first in drawing us so that we may respond in faith, then cleansing and sanctifying us afterwards, and gifting us so we can carry out the work of God. God gets the credit for everything. That is the Catholic doctrine.

I would contend that assurance is the essence of the Christian faith.

I would contend that faith, hope, and love are the essence of the Christian faith, believing in Jesus, trusting in God and obeying the leaders He places in His Church. Then we may have assurance – if we persevere to the end, as the bible says.

The Bible teaches that justification is an event, while the RCC teaches that it is a lifelong process that includes sanctification.

Protestants, not the bible, teach that justification is a one-time event that cannot be lost. The bible teaches that justification can be lost, but can also be restored.

As just one example, think of 1 Cor 5, the believer who fell into serious immorality, sleeping with his father’s wife, whom Paul counseled they should cast out, deliver to Satan, “that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor 5). But he was a believer, one of them, bearing the name of brother.

I’ve heard many Protestant pastors try to find ways to explain why sinners who apostatize in the bible weren’t really believers, so didn’t really lose their salvation, because they didn’t have it to begin with – but that is to twist the plain words of scripture.

To be justified is to be made right – but if we fall into serious sin, and do not repent of it, we are no longer right. We must be made right again, through repentance, in which case Jesus forgives us and the Holy Spirit cleanses us of the sin we fell into.

There are many other exhortations in the bible to this effect, that only those who endure to the end will be saved (Mk 13:13), and we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Php 2:12). Catholic doctrine harmonizes all of these scriptures beautifully.

In other words, a Protestant is converted once, a Catholic must be converted twice.

The Church does not speak of being “converted twice.” It speaks of conversion as an on-going process, as we must always be more and more deeply converted, conformed, to Christ, always growing in our faith, always growing in holiness and sanctification, all very biblical concepts. Yes, there is the initial conversion, and the initial grace of forgiveness and justification that goes with it. But that is only the beginning of the work of re-making us in the image and likeness of God.

Protestants do believe that we must be sanctified, which is a biblical concept. Justification entails sanctification. The two go hand-in-hand. Christ’s work isn’t just about saving us so we go to heaven, as a one time event, like handing out tickets to a show. That is a very truncated view of Christ’s work. His work is to regenerate and recreate us interiorly into His own image and likeness, and exteriorly when He comes again, at the new creation and the resurrection of our bodies.

The Bible teaches that we have direct access to God.

Yes, and there is no more direct access to God than in the Church, through the Holy Eucharist.

that Jesus is the only mediator.

Yes. And it also tells us what He mediates: the new covenant, through His life, death, and resurrection. (1 Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6, 9:15, 12:24). But is He then the only one to pray, to work, to suffer, to preach the good news? No, of course not. The bible makes it very clear that we are to participate in His work, helping bring souls to salvation, because we are His Body, remaining on the earth after His Ascension into heaven. That is the sense in which we “mediate,” and we each have our different roles in the task. The leaders of the Church also have their roles.

The RCC teaches that we must go through many mediators (Mary, the RCC, the priest, the Pope, the Saints, etc.)

Again, because we are all to participate in the work of Christ, according to our roles and gifts. Christ did not stop working when He went to heaven; neither do we. We are all part of the same Body, and Mary and the saints in heaven, being our brothers and sisters in Christ (and Mary is our mother, because Christ is our brother, and she’s His mother), pray for us in heaven, especially if we ask them to. We are not separated from them, or they from us, and we all continue to function together as one Body, bringing souls into the Body for salvation and the building of the kingdom of God, which will be fully revealed when Christ comes again.

The Bible teaches that salvation is monergistic. The RCC teaches that salvation is synergistic.

Actually, Protestants teach that salvation is monergistic, not the bible (readers, monergism is the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration). The bible teaches that we must cooperate with the grace of Christ, loving and obeying Him, which is to use our will. If we are disobedient, continue willfully in sin while believing in Jesus, will we be regenerated? Of course not!

These are not minor differences, but rather result in two truly distinct religions.

Not so distinct. As I said, Protestants also can be saved, by the saving elements of the faith we have in common, though you do not have all the elements, and you have a few of them wrong.

It is my understanding that the RCC has only infallibly interpreted a handful of Scripture verses, those that deal with the primacy of the RCC, and the sacraments. Are these all the verses that the Holy Spirit has interpreted for the Church?

If you believe that, Inspector, then I can only say that you have not truly studied Catholicism, have not truly immersed yourself in the fullness of her teaching over the ages, which is deeply and thoroughly biblical – far more so, in my opinion, than Protestantism. Judging from your comments and the books on your (somewhat deceptive) website, I’d say you’ve spent more time studying works against Catholicism than actual Catholicism, from non-authoritative, deeply flawed sources – like trying to learn medicine from someone who’s never been to medical school, and doesn’t have a license.

There is an underlying problem to your whole perspective, and that is your view of the bible, which you constantly refer to. The problem is that the bible was written in a specific context, for a specific purpose. Protestants have taken the bible out of context, and are trying to understand it out of context, which is difficult to do properly - as evidenced by the lack of unity and agreement in the Protestant world. Like trying to use a computer manual without having the actual computer it goes with.

Why don’t you try studying real Catholicism, which is the real context of the bible? And I don’t mean just cherry-picking for things that appear to confirm your misperceptions (something common among Protestants, I’ve observed, including when I was still a Protestant), but really study it fairly, in its fullness. It takes time and intellectual effort, but it is very rewarding. It is Jesus, living and incarnate, speaking and teaching, on the earth. It is the bible, unfolding in all its richness, on the earth.

[David H. Lukenbill]

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.

[Inspector Fruiteau]

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."

[David H. Lukenbill]

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.

[Dennis Martin]

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.

[Dennis Martin]

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.

[Aimee]

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 "sinister" Vatican I:

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.

[Jeff Tan]

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.

[Inspector Fruiteau]

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.

[Aimee]

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.

[Aimee]

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.

[David H. Lukenbill]

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.

[Maryellen]

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

[ELC]

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.

[Aimee]

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!

[Inspector Fruiteau]

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!

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