Infallibility

Christ gave to Simon Peter and his successors, the Keys to the Kingdom and the power of binding and loosing. To the Popes was given the authority to teach. To them, in this regard, was given the charism of infallibility. "Infallibility" is not "impeccability" -- the inability to sin. Catholics do not believe that Popes are sinless and never err. Infallibility is simply a gift that is expressed in very specific ways, limited by Sacred Deposit of Faith -- Tradition, Scripture, and the unanimous writings of the early Fathers. As put by Vatican I:

The Pope may explain doctrines more fully, he may go more deeply into them, he can extrapolate from moral principles to shed light on new situations that arise, but he cannot contradict what has been handed down by Christ and the Apostles and still claim infallibility for that teaching.

Infallibility

Protestants believe the first Pope possessed the charism of infallibility.

Now, they might not believe that Peter was the first Pope (which he was), but they believe that his Epistles are infallible. They also believe that Luke, Matthew, Mark, Paul, Jude and John wrote infallibly. They believe that Moses "was infallible," too. And Hosea, Micah, Nehemiah, Isaiah, David, Solomon, Zechariah -- any Patriarch, Prophet, Apostle, or Evangelist who wrote a Bibilical Book is deemed by Protestants to be infallible.

But somehow they see things as having changed, and the idea of the gift of infallibility being given to man is laughed off as "Popish superstition" at best, and as "Romish sacrilege" at worst.

Why they believe this, when since Israel's origins God has always provided authoritative leaders, I don't know. From Abraham to Jacob to Moses to David to Solomon, et. al., throughout the thousands and thousands of years of Israel's existence, God gave Israel earthly authority. But Protestants see this authority as having abruptly ended when the Old Testament Covenant was fulfilled and Israel's King of Kings took on flesh.

Did that earthly authorty pass away? If not, where did that authority pass on to?

The authority passed to Peter and to the priests of the New Covenant.

"But we don't believe that Moses and Jacob and David were perfect! Look at David -- he committed adultery! Just because they wrote infallible books doesn't mean they were perfect!"

Precisely. And Catholics don't believe that Popes are perfect and can't sin or that every word a Pope mutters is infallible. When David whored around, he sinned. When Solomon prayed to pagan gods, he sinned. When Peter denied Christ three times, he sinned. When Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran or failed to deal with heretic, Modernist Bishops and homosexualist priests, he sinned. Impeccability is not a part of the deal -- but all of these sinners had/have the charism of infallibility.

How Infallibility Works

The Authentic (i.e. "authoritative") Magisterium of the Church -- i.e., the teaching office of the Church exercised by proper authority -- has different levels of infallibility:

In addition to Magisterium, the Pope can, of course, simply act as a private person and offer his personal opinions on anything from current events to sports to food to movies. These may be of interest to us Catholics, who tend to sensibly love -- or at least respect the office of -- the Holy Father, but they are not "Church teaching" in any way. In the same way, a Council may be called that is pastoral and not dogmatic in nature (such as Vatican II).

Now, some Catholics forget the second level of the Magisterium, the "Ordinary Infallible Magisterium." They forget the Sacred Deposit of Faith, the unanimous agreement of the early Christian Fathers, and Sacred Tradition. These "Catholics" are the "liberal Catholics" or "modernist Catholics" you hear so much from in the media. They are the ones who root for the ordination of women, the eradication of the Christian view of homosexuality, etc. These are the well-organized, well-funded loudmouth "Catholics" who eat away at the Church's teachings and have become well-entrenched in various dioceses.

Another type of Catholic forgets about that third level of teaching that is not infallible at all. Any time the Pope teaches, he must be heard, his authority given respect, and the teaching given the benefit of the doubt because it comes from the Vicar of Christ. But if it contradicts prior infallible Magisterium, it is not infallible -- and it must not be obeyed if it proves harmful to the faith. Catholics who forget this level of Magisterium try very hard to be "orthodox" by being obedient, but they often have a false sense of obedience -- an obedience that sometimes borders on a pre-conscious papolatry ("pope worship"), though, of course, they know better and know that "worshipping the Pope" would be a terrible sin. They usually have a very healthy sensus catholicus, a desire for traditional Catholicism, and a virtuous patience, but they simply attribute to the Pope authority he does not have and they truly need to come to a better understanding of what the Magisterium is. These Catholics are often called "neo-conservatives," "conservatives," or "neo-Catholics" (they often think of and refer to themselves as "traditional Catholics" though they are not). You will see these otherwise wonderful Catholics tying themselves into knots trying to defend some of the novelties that followed Vatican II, or sweating bullets making excuses for some of the Holy Father's more scandalous actions (e.g., "ecumenical" services that include praying with Animists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Protestants; allowing altar girls and "Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers", etc.), failures to act (e.g., lack of discipline given to Bishops), and opinions (e.g., support for the anti-subsidiarity, anti-life, anti-Christ United Nations).

Their desire to protect the Holy Father is understandable -- and laudable! -- especially since the papacy has been attacked so unfairly since the Protestant Rebellion and the ensuing secular revolution, most often with outrageous lies. But these Catholics have to wake up, study a bit, and defend true Catholic teaching as it has been known for 2,000 years.

How to recognize what is and isn't infallible

If it has always been taught by the Church as a matter of faith or morals, it is infallible. If it is a solemn definition, it is infallible.

Ex., you are reading two Encyclicals. The first Encyclical reads:

In this document, the only parts which would be infallible would be the lines "Jesus Christ is God" and "women may not be ordained to the priesthood" because these have always been taught. This is teaching at the level of the Universal Magisterium, which is infallible.

The second Encyclical reads:

Notice the explicit "we define" here? Notice that it is addressed to "anyone," not just to members of the Latin Church or of the Eastern Churches, etc.? Notice the penalty in place for non-acceptance of what is being said (if you don't believe this, you have fallen away from the Catholic Faith)? By these marks, you can know that infallible teaching is being expressed.

In this document, X, Y, and Z are infallible, but not "the red dog runs at night." This is teaching at the level of the Extraordinary (or Solemn) Magisterium, which is also infallible and is to be accepted "de fide." (Note: Protestants and uneducated Catholics who ask blankly, "Is Enclyclical X infallible?" need to recognize that a 100-page Encyclical may be written that is not infallible in any way, or has 10 paragraphs that are infallible, or 1 sentence that is infallible, etc.). This sort of exercise of the Solemn Magisterium is very rare, but very necessary when clarity is needed over a teaching that has always been taught, but whose details haven't been strictly defined.

All other teachings are owed obedience as long as they do not lead to a loss of Faith, harm the Church, impede the salvation of souls, lead to an evil, etc.

Summary:

How the teachings are passed down

In addition to the above authoritative excercises of the Magisterium is "ecclesiastical tradition." Ecclesiastical tradition is the body of disciplines and practices which Christ's Church has ordained to be the manner in which our Faith is lived out and expressed. To quote Brother Alexis Bugnolo, writing in Seattle Catholic:

The details of ecclesiastical tradition (small "T") are not a matter of dogma per se, but they are the inerrant manner in which dogma and doctrine are taught, learned, expressed, and lived. The details of ecclesiastical tradition may develop; they are not written in stone. But they may develop only slowly, "organically," in terms of quantity or quality (not substance), and in such a manner that is consistent with Natural Law and which better expresses the Faith (or at least doesn't harm the Faith, such as the novel practices since Vatican II do). Many of the problems in the Church since the Second Vatican Council stem from the almost complete eradication or revolutionizing of ecclesiastical tradition, in spite of the Second Council of Nicaea's anathema against such things and in spite of the fact that they have proven dangerous to the Faith.

swampfox101: Why don’t you believe it in first before telling someone to read it.

tsk, tsk, worshipping a collection of books -- we Christians worship Jesus Christ who IS the Word of God. Why don't you?

if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The people around Him made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12

5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16).

Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying

John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.

Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.

And, all of this is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)

6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

and also 1 Cor 11:27-29

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ

“So, swamp — why do you doubt Jesus Christ?”

Me? Doubt Jesus? I’m not the one that disparges his word, thats you and the Catolic Church.

Anyway, Heres something by James Burton Coffman if you care to read it.

John 30-36
Verse 30
They said therefore unto him, What then dost thou for a sign, that we may see, and believe thee? What workest thou?

The marvelous wonder of the day before was lost on that carnal multitude. Instead of being convinced, they demanded sign upon sign, even suggesting a moment later that Jesus’ miracle was inferior to Moses’ miracle (it was not Moses’ miracle, but God’s) of the manna. The manna had been provided for a period of forty years and was held to be superior to the barley loaves Jesus created. However, God’s purpose was different in the two cases. In the wilderness, the survival of the chosen people was the objective; but in the ministry of Christ, it was the identification of Jesus as the Messiah and divine Son of God which was the objective; and, for the latter purpose, creation of barley loaves for five thousand people was just as effective (or should have been) as feeding a million people for a whole generation.

What then ... for a sign ...
This demand of a sign was characteristic of that people. The Pharisees demanded a “sign from heaven”, no doubt meaning some spectacular wonder of their own choosing; but Jesus rejected such vain and carnal demands, resting the final proof of his Godhead upon “the sign of the prophet Jonah,” that is, the death, burial and resurrection from the dead. Mark stated of another occasion that Jesus “marveled at their unbelief” (Mark 6:6). Surely Jesus must have marveled here also.

THE MARVEL OF UNBELIEF

Unbelief is such a wonder that Christ himself marveled at it!

Unbelief is a state in which man consciously accepts for himself the status and destiny of a mere animal. Contrary to the deepest instinct of the soul and the prompting of his own ego, the unbeliever rejects the status available to him as a child of God, claims descent from simian ancestors, and ascribes to himself a destiny identical with that of a rat or a worm.

Unbelief is contrary to man’s nature. Man’s very nature is to believe, an inveterate trait locked into the deepest instincts of human life. Evil men know that trait is in men and take full advantage of it, all of the schemes ever devised for defrauding men having as their dominant characteristic a reliance on man’s willingness to believe almost anything. As P. T. Barnum indelicately stated it, “There’s a sucker born every minute!” What an incredible marvel it is, therefore, that in the contemplation of the mountains of evidence attesting the authenticity of Christ and his message, the behavior of mankind should be atypical. What a wonder that people will not believe in God, but will believe in witchcraft! No wonder Jesus marveled at unbelief.

Unbelief is a denial of man’s highest hopes. The unbeliever forsakes the hope of heaven, forfeits all cosmic value for himself, and flaunts his conviction that he shall descend to the rottenness of a grave and remain there forever. Such a spiritual renunciation is soul suicide; and even Christ marveled at such a thing.

Unbelief is a denial of the senses and a closing of the windows of the mind. It is a refusal to see, to hear, and to understand the mountainous evidence calling men to believe in the Lord Jesus. It is like a man staring at the Grand Canyon or the Matterhorn and saying, “I do not believe it!” The Holy Bible, the history of Israel, the great commemorative festivals of Judaism and Christianity, the sweep of the religion of Christ through history and the collateral enlightenment and civilization which invariably attended it, and the lives of faith in all ages these the unbeliever will not see. The thundering voice of history, the testimony of the calendar, and the witness of all that is highest and best in art, literature, music, architecture, government, and psychology - all are rejected by the unbeliever in the manner of Southey’s owl hooting at the noon sun, and saying, “Where is it? Where is it?”

Unbelief is reverse logic. In Mark 6:6, where it is stated that Jesus marveled because of their unbelief, the reference is to the citizens of Nazareth who rejected Jesus because he lived in their village! This was their logic (?): We are unworthy and ignoble; Christ came from one of our families; therefore he is unworthy and ignoble! That is exactly like saying: I hear this great and wonderful music; but since a person like I am is hearing it, it cannot possibly be true! This is the logic (?) that supports unbelief.
Then what a marvel indeed is unbelief! It is a display of human ignorance, perversity, and conceit turned wrongside out, that staggers the imagination and is no easier to understand than the death march of the lemmings. That the highest of creatures should consciously reject for himself any higher eternal status than that of a dog makes no sense at all, being an unqualified wonder.

Verse 31
Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.

It is best to be on guard when Satan quotes Scripture. Their quotation of Neh. 9:15 was a misquote because they made Moses the antecedent of “he” rather than God, an error Jesus corrected. This was actually, on their part, a disparagement of Jesus’ sign of the day before. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus had claimed to be greater than Moses; but that carnal multitude, still intent on using Jesus in their schemes against the Romans, contrasted his miracle unfavorably with what they improperly called Moses’ miracle, the manna, of course, having been provided for many years. What they were really trying to do here was to intimidate Christ into feeding everybody for years on end; but of course they would have liked a better diet than those barley loaves. The carnality of those men and the vulgar boldness of their daring suggestion constitute a remarkable proof of the fourth sign, for it is perfectly clear that they recognized in Jesus Christ the power to do what they wished him to do. Their logic was excellent, recognizing the fact that one who has the power to feed five thousand from five loaves and two little fishes also has the power to feed all men indefinitely. How easily could Jesus have fed an army to be used against the Romans that was their view and their motivation for what was said here.

Verse 32
Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, It was not Moses that gave you the bread out of heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread out of heaven.

See under preceding verse. They were wrong in their inference that Moses was greater than Christ, for God, not Moses, fed them in the wilderness. Moses was God’s “servant” (Nehemiah 9:14), and thus he stood in the comparison of the two wonders on a parity with the apostles, through whose hands Jesus fed them; and Christ was on a parity with God the provider. In the second clause, Christ again tried to lift their eyes to the far more wonderful thing that God was at that very moment doing for them in his providing the “true bread out of heaven,” namely, Christ the Saviour. The tragedy was complete in this, that they could not see the true bread before their eyes, being utterly blinded by the barley loaves which absolutely dominated their thoughts.

In many of God’s wonders, there are primary and secondary manifestations of them, as in the rainbow, the primary bow always appearing brighter and on the lower level, and with the colors reversed in the secondary. Thus, there are two miracles in view in sign four. The primary wonder was the barley loaves, the higher marvel being Christ himself, the true bread of heaven. In this remarkable analogy, a change of status appears in the function of Christ, who in the physical miracle was the provider, but who in the spiritual counterpart of it appeared as the bread provided, recalling the reversal of the rainbow colors mentioned above. Jesus never succeeded in lifting the eyes of his audience to that higher level of seeing the true bread of life. The barley loaves, the barley loaves, the barley loaves!

Verse 33
For the bread of God is that which cometh down out of heaven and giveth life unto the world.

Unto the world ...
Not for Israel alone was the true bread, but for all the world. The true bread was far greater than the manna in these particulars: (1) it gives and sustains spiritual life, a far greater thing than merely sustaining physical life; (2) it is for all the world, not merely for Israel alone; (3) it creates spiritual life leading to eternal life, which no manna could have done.

Verse 34
They said therefore unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

Strongly suggestive of the woman’s words at the well (John 4:15), this was as close as they came to believing; but here there was no following on to know the Lord. Moreover, they did not know what they were asking, and there is the strong possibility they were still thinking of supplies for an army.

Verse 35
Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

I am the bread of life ...
is one of the seven great “I am’s” of John. This is an apt metaphor of God’s providing in Christ the means of human redemption. In that age, bread was essential to every meal, the staff of life, a fit emblem of Christ the soul’s food.

He that believeth on me shall never thirst ...
This is parallel to the previous clause and means the same, the living water and the bread of life being separate metaphors for one thing only, Jesus Christ. “Believeth on me ...” should not be understood as an affirmation of the popular superstition regarding salvation by “faith only.” See John 12:42.

Verse 36
But I said unto you, that ye have seen me, and yet believe not.

The thought of this verse is in John 6:26; but it is a mention of a part of the conversation reported here for the first time, but having taken place a little earlier.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Infallibility

How Infallibility Works

How to recognize what is and isn't infallible

How the teachings are passed down