I
Izdaari
Guest
Any church that claims infallibility is wrong. That doesn’t mean they have the Gospel wrong, but if they make a claim to infallibility, that claim is wrong. Why is it so important to you to have that?
- Status
W
woodland_poet
Guest
Better yet, from where if not the Catholic Church does the Bible gain it’s authority? The Bible does not quote itself as the source of it’s own authority. If there is no Catholic Church, why believe anything written in the Bible?
S
StTommyMore
Guest
That is not what the Scripture seems to indicate. Read Matthew 16, Matthew 18, John 16, ans 1 Timothy 3
J
Javl
Guest
Since Jesus, as God, is infallible, shouldn’t His Church ( Matt 16 ) be infallible? Since the Catholic Church IS the Church that Jesus founded and is its head, it has to be infallible. It would be very odd and strange, and against logic and reason, that an infallible being would create a very fallible and weak system or organization.
With an infallible Church, the truths and teachings of Jesus and the Apostles would be guarded against distortions, misinterpretations, and misunderstanding. This does not hold true with those that rely upon :“sola scriptura”: thecatholictreasurechest.com/sorigin.htm
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
T
TedDC
Guest
To me, the question is whether today’s institutional Roman Catholic Church is in fact an infallible successor to the Apostles, or is it a successor to some lesser degree, able to trace its founding to the Apostles but not inheriting the authority which Christ bestowed on them.Since Jesus, as God, is infallible, shouldn’t His Church ( Matt 16 ) be infallible? Since the Catholic Church IS the Church that Jesus founded and is its head, it has to be infallible. It would be very odd and strange, and against logic and reason, that an infallible being would create a very fallible and weak system or organization.
With an infallible Church, the truths and teachings of Jesus and the Apostles would be guarded against distortions, misinterpretations, and misunderstanding. This does not hold true with those that rely upon :“sola scriptura”: thecatholictreasurechest.com/sorigin.htm
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
J
jphilapy
Guest
Just wondering if you would be willing to apply that logic to the apostles if you were a first century christian. I mean would you say regarding apostles and the churches they established, “I don’t think any “church” has the whole infallible truth.”
J
Javl
Guest
It is the same Church that Jesus founded about 2000 years ago. It is a dynamic, living Church. If it wasn’t then Jesus lied when He said that He would be with the Church always, as He promised.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
N
NucleicAcid
Guest
One could go to the Holy Orthodox Church, founded by Jesus Christ.
P
PLeeD
Guest
There are plenty of examples in scripture that the original churches were unarguably fallible. They were corrected by the apostles.
There are also plenty of examples of the original apostles fallibility. They had to correct each other.
In all cases, it was the Holy Spirit that acted to persuade those involved of the truth. That same spirit of discernment is available to us today to decide what is right and what is wrong. The truth is “written in our hearts”!
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Individual communities, yes. Individual Apostles (with the exception of St. Peter), yes. But The Church as a unified whole, or the Apostles speaking together as a body in council? Nope.
T
Todd520
Guest
What are your thoughts on Vatican II ?
Seems many at CA feel mistakes were made
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Vatican II was an ecumenical council, and as such, an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church. As Extraordinary Magisterium, I must give my mental assent to it. Those statements in Vatican 2 which are dogmatic (for example, abortion is condemned in GS) in nature are infallible. Those statements which apply more to the way we do things (inclusion of the vernacualr in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass) are reformable. Did the CHurch promulgate error? No.
J
Janet1983
Guest
What makes you think that he was excepted? Just curious…
S
StTommyMore
Guest
As the undisputed leader among the Apostles, he taught definitively and infallibly as granted in Mt 16:18-19
J
jphilapy
Guest
StTommyMore summed it up well. To follow your logic, we would need to conclude that the apostles didn’t actually teach the word of God, instead they taught their opinions. It is on opinions the church was built right? With a the protestant versions of God’s word, the church could never have been built. That foundation is sinking sand.
J
Janet1983
Guest
If Peter was the “undisputed leader among the apostles”
… why doesn’t he refer to himself as such?
… why do none of the other apostles call him anything like that?
… why wasn’t he the first one to see Jesus Christ after the resurrection?
… why did he pen only two books out of the New Testament, while Paul penned 13?
… why would he be the apostle to the Jews while Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles as declared in Galatians 2:7? Shouldn’t he be the apostle for the Gentiles, if not for all if he was the undisputed leader among the apostles? Doesn’t this mean he was not the only leader?
… why is he listed after James in the list of the pillars of the church in Galatians 2:9?
… why is it that the apostle Paul have to rebuke him for a doctrinal error in Galatians 2:11-12?
S
StTommyMore
Guest
He does not refer to himself as such out of humility
They defer to him
He was the first Apostle to see Him
We was commanded to preach, not to write
He was forced underground. Paul did not have this impediment
Galatians 2:9 is the ONLY TIME in the Scriptures he is not named first.
He was infallible, not impeccable. He was not rebuked for doctrinal error, but for practice.
T
Todd520
Guest
Hi STM, just want to be clear I understand you.
V2 dogmatic statements are infallible and I expect offered no new guidance (condemming abortion is old news)
V2 reform statements were not infallible.
So if the reform statements are in error, or at least are off track, who is accountable if not the Church? Is this a fallible action of the bishops and Pope? (I’m OK with that)
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Non-infallible dors not mean that they could be in error, but that they can change as circumstances change. For example, in Optatam Totius it is stated that seminary standards are to be decided by episcopal conferences, rather than by the Hoy See directly. This is not infallible, because this could be changed In the future, more or less centralization may be prudent, so this is reformable, and therefore, not infallible. The same document says it is the responsibility of all to foster vocations to the priesthood. This always has and always will be true and is infallible. Both things are free from error, but one is reformable and the other is not
T
Todd520
Guest
Thanks STM
That makes sense. sort of ‘it was the right decision for that time’ but then time and culture changes, so the Church adapts.
That makes sense. sort of ‘it was the right decision for that time’ but then time and culture changes, so the Church adapts.
- Status