Recently I initiated a dialogue with an international anti Catholic apologist who has an online ministry dedicated to bringing Catholics out of the Church. I had asked him a few questions as a result of another apologists attempts to call him out. I asked him three questions and he attempted, although poorly to answer my first two questions by directing me to several articles on his website. He did not have a direct answer for my third question. He just asked me a question. I will first show my question and then his response and then my reply to his response. I will not name the anti Catholic apologist on the blog. If you want to know who he is send me an email.
This is my question:
3.) Would you agree that God used man to infallibly record His Word under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? If you say yes, then why is it so hard for you to believe that the successors of these same apostles, who infallibly conveyed God’s Word both in writing and preaching, could not be given the gift of infallibly interpreting God’s Word?
This is his response:
3. Don’t stay on the level of possibility; show me from Scripture that the pastors of the church are in fact infallible.
Here is my reply to his question:
Thank you for your reply to my questions. I first want to answer your last question. You want to know where it says in the Bible that a pastor is given the gift of infallibility in interpreting scripture. First, as you know, Catholics do not believe that something has to be in the Bible for it to be accepted as a doctrine. You are well aware of the concept of Sacred Tradition in the Catholic Church.
You are also aware that the Catholic Church does not teach that the individual “pastors” of the Church are infallible on their own. The Pope does have the charism of infallibility. The Bishops when teaching in unity with the Pope also enjoy the charism. You are also aware that the infallibility is of limited scope. The Pope, when teaching “ex cathedra”, is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Not everything written by the Pope is considered infallible either. An example of this would be the Pope’s recent book on Jesus Christ. In it he declares that this is only his personal opinion. The same can be said of previous Popes whose personal writings have been used to try to disprove the charism.
Now I will show you how the Bible teaches that the gift of infallibility was passed on the successors of Peter and to the Bishops when teaching in unity. To piece together this puzzle, you must first answer a few questions about the authority structure of the Church and whether that authority was passed down. The key concept to help in understanding the authority that was passed down from the apostles is Apostolic/Episcopal succession.
In Acts 1:20 we see that position of Apostle was considered an office.
“For it is written in the Book of Psalms:
‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’
And:
‘May another take his office.’
The word translated here as “office” was the Greek word that is often translated as overseership or bisphoric. This is the same word that Bishop comes from. The Apostles were considered overseers and this position was considered an office that would have successors. This can be verified by the teachings of the early Church. Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyon and many others can attest to the doctrine.
Let us expand on the concept of Apostolic/Episcopal succession to take a look at the special office/bisphoric that Peter held. That office is symbolized by the keys that were given to Peter by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18-19:
“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
This passage is foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:20-22:
On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.
The office described in Isaiah describes the office of royal steward or prime minister. This power of this office was symbolized by the keys to the Kingdom of David. This office had the power of the King while he was away. The authority to make binding decisions for the kingdom came with the office.
The office described in Isaiah is fulfilled by the office of the Apostle Peter. Peter and his successors are the royal stewards of the Kingdom of God. This power of this office is symbolized by the keys given to Peter. The power to bind and loose is also a symbol of this power. Jesus gave Peter and his successors the authority to bind and loose. It would seem that if such a power was given to the office of the Apostle Peter, that power would be an infallible power. Included with this authority would be interpretation of scripture. This power comes from God and not the individual. It is through the guidance of the Holy Spirit that the royal stewards of the kingdom of God, which on earth is the Church, are kept from teaching error in regards to faith and morals. This does not mean that they are perfect and they don’t sin. It also does not mean that they don’t make mistakes on issues outside the scope of faith and morals. The parallels between the passages are amazing and are not coincidental.
Let’s move on and look at 1 Timothy 3:15:
“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.’’
Here we see the concept of the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth! If the church is truly the pillar and foundation of truth, wouldn’t you agree that this would include all truth? Would you not agree that this would include the infallible interpretation of scripture? Would you say that the protestant church would fit this definition of the church? Would truth include all doctrine? If they don’t have all the doctrine correct, then I don’t believe that they meet this definition of the Church. The Catholic Church does claim that she is the pillar and foundation of truth! She does not say that her members are perfect but her teachings are truth!
Not every member of the Church is infallible either. The Pope as the successor of the bisphoric of Peter has the charism of infallibility that comes with the office he holds. The other bishops when teaching in union with the Pope also have this gift. This authority was given by Christ.
Luke 10:16 says:
“ Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”
Seem to me that a gift of infallibility was given to these 72, who were chosen to go out to the world. These 72 would not teach error, otherwise Jesus would not have made such a bold statement. If they taught error then Jesus’ statement that those who reject you reject me, even if you teach error does not make a lick of sense.
John 16:13 speaks of the Spirit of truth coming to guide us to all truth!
“But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.
We are to be guided by the Spirit of truth. This meshes well with the Catholic understanding that the leaders of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals when teaching in unity with the Bishop of Rome. The protestant interpretation of the verse does not mesh nearly as well. The division in the Protestant Churches in regards to what is truth disqualifies this interpretation. This passage says “all truth” not just part of the truth!
Thank you for your time in this matter. I do not have a PHD and I do not have formal training in theology but I do understand the Catholic faith well enough to defend it. When I have the time I hope to review your first two responses.
I want to conclude with a quote from Cyprian of Carthage in reference to the Bishop of Rome and the chair of Peter.
“Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” Cyprian of Carthage 256 A.D.
——————————–
Some final comments. This was not the most complete defense that can be made for the doctrine of infallibility. There are many more passages that help support the teaching. This does give a few key points that clearly support the doctrine. Maybe when I have some time, I can get into some of the other passages. I hope to reply to the apologists first two answers when I get some time.
[...] ‘May another take his office.’ The word that is translated as office or bisphoric is ἐπισκοπὴν. This is the greek word episkopēn which means office of bishop. This definition comes from here.(this is not a Catholic source) The Bible clearly states that the Apostles held the office of bishop or overseer as early as Acts 1:20. While public revelation stopped with the death of the Apostle John, the authority of the Bishops continued and was passed down to this day in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The authority of the Bishop of Rome comes from the special authority that was passed down through Peter the Prince of the Apostles. Do you honestly think Jesus would leave his Church without authority? Sola Scriptura as authority has led to anarchy and division in the Church. Where did you get your authority? If faced with the two options. 1.)Take your fallible interpretation of the Bible or 2.) Take the interpretation of the Catholic Church, whose leaders received their authority from Apostles, passed down through their successors. Logically, whose interpretation should I take? Since there is a disagreement over this, who should we take it to. The Bible clearly says the Church. Whose Church should we take it to? The Church that was founded by Jesus Christ or some newly established Church? I know how the Church of the Bible handled the disagreement over circumcision. They did not use Sola Scriptura as the authority. The leaders of the Church led by Peter made a binding decision at the Council of Jerusalem. Many did not like the decision and many(the Judaizers) thought it was unscriptural but nevertheless it was binding. Once again I ask you the question…Why don’t you use your time to preach to non believers of Christ rather than mess with Catholic Christians? You could use your talents to bring Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist and others to Christ. Cheers, Chris —————————————— Here is the original reply sent to the apologist. http://discoverthefaith.com/2008/06/18/reply-to-an-anti-catholic-apologist/ [...]