Wednesday, November 16, 2005

A Shot In the Foot

We paint ourselves in a corner when we claim infallibility for ourselves. The teaching of original sin is that sin has so marred our core that we are dead and can not respond to God such that it takes God to come to us in mercy and revive our mind and heart for us to come to him. This teaching does not deny that man can pray, read the Bible, do good deeds that is not what is meant. It means though that all works of righteousness are filthy rags in God's sight. It would be good works done from impure hearts. Man does not only need help, he is spiritually dead that he needs to be resurrected in spirit.

The practical outworking of original sin (as I see it) is that it keeps us on our toes. Original sin is not done away by conversion, it inheres in the believer. The unbeliever is sinner only but the Christian is a believing sinner (he is both sinful and holy at the same time). It is a safe teaching that helps the Christian not to value himself highly than he should.

The RC teaching of Papal/Magisterial Infallibility is not practical and flies against the teaching of Scripture - that men are liars. It does not see the possibility in practice that they can be led astray by their leaders. RCs always believe the the RC magisterium will always be guided by the HS, no matter what happens. What about Acts 20:26-30?

The RCC paints itself in a corner when it attributes something to the hierarchy what is meant to be attributed to God, like infallibility. This I think, is the reason why there are Sedevantarians who believe the RCC has betrayed Council of Trent and Vatican I. Put it this way, if in their hearts they believed they were wrong in excommunicating the protestants, through the Council of Trent, they could not simply retract their damnable pronouncements. That would mean they are not infallible as the doctrine says. So what to do? Just redefine the meaning of words and come up with Vatican II. More inconsistency. When you are infallible, the command to repent is not applicable to you. This locks you inside a room whose keys no knows what happened.

It is like falling on a quick sand, the more you move, the more you sink. It is a shot in the foot - as some say.


Venerable Aussie said...

Look, Mr Cruz, your whole post here unfortunately demonstrates that, like many Protestants, you do not have the slightest understanding of the meaning of papal infallibility. And I mean this not as a slight to you. I just think that it is sad that you just misunderstand what Jesus Christ intended for the visible Church He established.

Again it is worth reading (as I’ve been doing lately) the letters of early Christians. Following the establishment of the Church upon the Rock of Peter, Jesus Christ made this promise: “the gates of Hell will not prevail” against His Church (Matt 16:18). The early Christians understood Christ’s words clearly, and, as the hierarchical Church envisioned by Christ grew and spread, they could rejoice in the knowledge that the Church would NEVER apostasize by teaching heresy. They knew (as properly catechised Catholics of today should know) that, as St Paul said, the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). If it taught heresy – ie if it solemnly defined as true a FALSE teaching on faith and morals – then it would cease to be the Church.

If you can understand this, then you have the key to understanding papal infallibility.

(And to help you clear up some of the confusion - Does it mean Popes can’t sin? No! Does it mean that if they say it’s better to have Mass in Latin than in English I have to agree? No! Does it mean that St Paul can’t disagree with St Peter? Of course not!! Does it mean that if a Pope says everyone should barrack for Collingwood we have to follow him? You bet we don’t!)


Venerable Aussie said...

I've just had another quick thought.

You will recall how I've referred to the Bible as the gift to Christians (from the tradtions of the hierarchical Church Jesus Christ established, but clearly as I've said, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit).

Well, papal infallibility on issues of faith and morals is in reality nothing other than Christ's blessed gift - and promise - to His post-Resurrection Church.

LPC said...


Please clarify with me. What scriptural warrant do RCs use to believe in Papal Infallibility?

Also when the pope is sitting ex cathedra and making pronouncements there, is it not possible for him to teach heresy at that particular point? What scriptural guarantee is used by RC to believe this?

I alluded to the warnings of Paul and now Peter also in 2 Peter 2 of the possibility of false teachers. You are sure that the pope can never be a false teacher?

I am arguing against the principle of faith - Papal Infallibility the same way that RCs can argue against Sola Scriptura.

So I am not being chicky when I ask the above questions. Feel free to instruct me by answering some questions as to why Papal Infallibility is a scriptural doctrine and it should be practiced.

Lastly, would you consider Gerry Matatics a heretic (in your opinion). As far as you can tell, does the RC consider him a heretic and does he deserve to be excommunicated?