Q. How can anyone actually believe that a mere man could be infallible?

A. Of course, an atheist would never accept this, but anyone who believes in a Creator God could easily accept that God can do anything He chooses to do. Wouldn’t you agree? So, anyone who believes in an all powerful God could accept that it would be theoretically possible for God to cause a man to be infallible.

But, that does not mean that He would choose to make a man infallible. So, then we could ask,

“Has He ever made any mere man infallible in the past?” And the answer to that question is


But here we are only left with Jews and Christians, perhaps Muslims, but I don’t know for sure, who believe that God has made many different men infallible down through the ages. Anyone and everyone who believes Sacred Scripture is the infallible word of God can agree that God did inspire all of the authors to write these books and teach the truth infallibly.

Of course, this does not prove that the pope is infallible but we can also see that God has no problem with leading His people infallibly through a mere and sinful man.

Jesus Called Peter Satan. How Could He Have Been Pope?

Q. If Jesus was making Peter His Prime Minister in the Church then why did He call Peter Satan a few verses later?
A. Peter was still very human, subject to sin, and the influence of Our Enemy.
Because, Peter, in trying to dissuade Jesus from the cross, came under the influence of Satan and tempted Jesus not to take up His cross, Jesus clearly perceived the true source of Peter’s seemingly compassionate words and denounces Satan and his influence on Peter.

“Get behind me Satan”. He was addressing Satan not calling Peter Satan. Then, speaking to Peter, Jesus says,
You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

This was Peter’s first lesson in learning how to discern the voice of Satan and the Voice of Christ.

Conversation: Mortal Sin

Q. Doesn’t 1 John 9 say that “if we confess our sins He (God) will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrightiousness” mean that when we confess, God is forgiving us not the person we confess to,

A. Yes, of course, it absolutely is God who forgives through His minister, the priest. The priest is His representative and provides audible assurance of forgiveness, and counsel.

In fact, if someone has the wrong heart attitude and is able to fool the priest that he is repentant when he is not and has no intention to avoid the sin in the future—God does not forgive the sin in actuality. So, even though the penitent hears the words of absolution, God is not mocked. Also, if he withholds confessing a deadly sin out of embarrassment, the confession of other sins and the absolution are worthless. Again, God is not mocked. If a deadly sin is truly forgotten during confession, it needs to be confessed next time but it does not invalidate the confession.

Q. and even if we confess to God privately.

A. But we are required to go to confession for deadly, as in grave, sin. Venial sins we may confess and be forgiven privately by praying to God on our own.

Q. So the Catholic Priest can say with Biblical authority that your sins have been forgiven without some special positional statement stemming from Peter.

A. Yes, however, Iit is not “a positional statement from Peter” but stated by Jesus Christ Himself, as recorded by the Apostle in Sacred Scripture, John 20. Now Protestant will interpret this verse differently. Protestant Interpretation vs Catholic Interpretation. Both are valid interpretations as interpretations go.

But how can the truth, the true interpretation be found? I am convinced that the only way is to go outside of the Bible and find out what the earliest Christians believed and practiced in relation to this verse. They Practiced oral, audible confession to the whole community at first and later made it easier on weak souls by allowing confession to be private between the penitent and the priest.

If the Pope Is Infallible…

Q. If the Pope is so infallible in doctrine, how could they have fallen into the error such as Indulgences.

BFHU: It was not the Pope who fell into the error.

Q.Would the Catholic Church endorse such activities today?

BFHU: It never did endorse those activities and still would condemn them today also.

Q. Would not one error such as this invalidate all the rest of their pronouncements,
BFHU: No b/c it was not the error of the Pope. We do not claim infallibility for anyone other than the Pope and all the bishops together in union with the Pope. What happened in Germany was not approved of by the Pope but a misapplication of indulgences in Germany, not the whole Catholic Church. The pope cannot make all Catholic infallible. They are not. Therefore, you will find Catholic who believe heresy, teach heresy and commit grave sin. 

Q. for just as a prophet is known by what he says and whether it comes true — one instance of this not happening is sufficient to judge that he was not a true prophet. I think this same standard would have to be applied to the claims of the Pope and given the numerous failures in many of the Pope’s personal lives

BFHU: But this standard pertained to the prophecy of a prophet. How do you jump from that to the personal behavior of the Pope? We do not believe that a pope is sinless or impeccable in his personal life. Just as Peter gave in to peer pressure in Galations. The behavior of the pope is not part of the definition of infallibility. The pope is only infallible when he does all of these: Teaches both To the Whole Church and only On Faith and Morals. Infalliblity is a protection of the purity of the faith for the whole Church. It is not for the exaltation or glory of the Pope.
He is not infallible when he teaches geometry. (not teaching faith and morals)
He is not infallible when he teaches on Faith and Morals walking down the hall at the Vatican talking privately to other bishops. (not to the whole Church)

Peter was not proclaiming anything to the the whole Church in Galations. And the Pope did not even condone the abuse of selling indulgences let alone teach the abuse to the whole Church. So none of this calls into question the Dogma of the Infallibility of the Pope.
See my Post –>Paul Rebuked Peter

Q. Since the actual canonization of the Bible didn’t occur until about 400 years after Jesus, I think it is safe to say that the church fathers at that time felt all of the inspired words of God had been recorded.

BFHU: Why do you think it is safe to say that?
We would say that John 21 indicates there was much more information but it could not all be written down. Jesus never said it must be written down. His choice for the repository of His teaching was faithful men.
John 21: 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Q. This I believe is a statement to the effect that Scripture is the sole rule of faith and doctrine.

BFHU: What statement? Where is this in Scripture?

Q. Sola Scriptura does not disallow other input, but surely judges it based on the Bible

BFHU: Where does Scripture recommend this? And even to the point of disparaging the Church that Jesus founded? Nothing that the Church teaches contradicts Scripture. It merely contradicts Protestant private interpretation.

What does Scripture say is the pillar and Foundation of Truth? The scripture? No….

1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the CHURCH  of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Q. Luther had to conclude the Catholic Church was not true to the Word of God,

BFHU: Luther’s conclusion only applied to the abuse in one part of the Catholic Church, namely Germany. If Luther concluded that the whole Catholic Church was not true to the Word of God based on the abuse of indulgences then he made a very big jump to a wrong conclusion.
If he made this judgement about the teaching of the Catholic Church based on the corrupt behavior of her ministers I would ask where in Scripture does it say to found another Church other than the one founded by Jesus Christ?
Q… and as Peter himself said in Acts 4:19, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.” Sure God still speaks to men today and gives guidance, but the Bible as it stands now is His final say and all future revelations must be judged based on it, not on a man’s interpretations.
BFHU: If you reject the interpretation of the Church founded by Christ, then whose interpretation can you trust to be infallible?

Q. If the Bible does not allow unequivocally for a Pope, then no person writing almost two hundred years later making such claims should be sufficient to convince one of this position.

BFHU: Just because the earliest extant writing about the authority of the Pope is in the 2nd or 3rd century, does not mean that that is when the primacy of the papacy began. The Pope is a historical fact. It is how Christianity has always operated. I trust the historic and ancient Catholic Church much more than the relatively new Protestant religions born only 500 years ago at the oldest and 40 years ago for Calvary Chapels.
Historically there has always been a Pope. And this reality is evidenced by Sacred Scripture. We interpret these passages as evidence but Protestants based on prior theology interpret these verses differently. So, Scripture can be interpreted in more than one way but history settles the question.

Q.Ask yourself this simple question, why this claim of Peter’s authority was not allowed in any other writings of the N/T?

BFHU: On what do you base this claim that the authority of Peter was not allowed ? What if your contention that all religious truth is contained in Scripture is not true? After all, Scripture does not claim this for itself? Don’t you think that would have been pretty important to include?

I find it ironic that you reject the teachings of the Catholic Church because she teaches things that are not in scripture and yet you base this rejection on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura which also is not in Scripture.

Q.Would the witnesses of these things have been so obtuse as to not show this as being true, even Peter himself. In fact, it actually shows just the opposite. This just doesn’t make sense. I think that in order to make these claims one would almost have to say that the Bible is in error to forget to record such an important detail, and I’m sure this is something the Catholic Church would not say.

BFHU: Not at all. Everything is simply not in Scripture. It is the erroneous Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura that insists that everything of importance must be in Scripture. And yet, his doctrine is nowhere to be found in Scripture.

The Faith was never meant to be derived from Scripture alone. No author of any book of the Bible would ever have dreamed of deriving The Faith from scripture alone b/c the Faith was strong and fertile and growing and spreading as they wrote the Scriptures. And scripture alone was not how this evangelization was accomplished.
The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Even, here we do not see St. Paul telling Timothy to write down anything but to entrust his teachings to faithful men.