Questioning Catholicism
This post is in response to comments I got about my entry about the book Four Witnesses. The following responses aren’t things I’m saying with full authority and 100% belief, but ideas I’ve been introduced to through respectable sources. I’m still processing all of this. I’m not jumping into it without knowing what I’m getting into, so read on, explore and ponder with me.
1. Concern about the Catholic opinion of the pope’s position
For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see…
Therefore, whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received.
-Vatican I, First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ
Four Witnesses also pointed out that the Catholic church sees the pope as infallible (without error in his judgment) rather than sinless. It seems like a small distinction to me, but a distinction nonetheless. I’m still not sure how I feel about this.
2. Why the focus on “getting back to the early church”?
Because, if the keys of the church were truly handed to Peter we should follow in his footsteps. Also, the early church gave us the Bible organized as we read it today. If this church predates the Bible we know, trust and use for guidance for our Church model, shouldn’t we also look at their example alongside the Bible they compiled as our guide?
So that’s two significant objections and their responses. Like I said, I still have doubts and questions about both. I’m still in the dark about a lot of things here. I’m sure plenty more will come up.

The fact that they believe the Pope to be infallible means they ignore Peter’s fallibility. The New Testament bears witness, with utter clarity, to Peter’s fallibility. How do they reconcile this with claiming those who are in line with Peter’s authority are infallible?
Comment by Lucas Knisely — May 5, 2009 @ 11:39 am