Authority and Infallibility

[Cephas]

centuri0n:

Where does God say the church will be infallible?

Sorry for going off topic for a sec, but…

…where does God say He is a Trinity?

It doesnt have to be explicit in scripture, like you would like it to be, with regards to infallibility, it’s implicit (implied) just like our (you and me) Most Blessed and Holy Trinity.

Sorry again for slightly going off just wanted to make a point about your statement.

 

[Chris_W]

Of course the president is not infallible. God did not promise to protect his office, nor the organization of which he is the head, from error.

God did however promise to protect His Church from error. Infallibility makes sense, although not explicit in Scripture. In fact, if you believe the Bible is inerrent, then you already acknowlege that God can and has given the gift of infallibility to men under certain cricumstances (the authors of the bible).

So many people reject the Catholic understanding, but I have never heard a viable alternative.

I am curious: What is your theory of how God is accmplishing His promise of protection?

 

[johnMark]

When centuri0n asked (or any protestant for that matter) for any sort of “proof” of infallibility scripture is quoted (as it often is). This answer assumes that scripture has authority on this matter, however, it is by the authority of the RCC that scripture is deemed inspired so how is giving scripture really a proof?

jM

 

[centuri0n]

Mt 28:19
Mk 1:9-11
Gen 19

That’s where God says the Father, Son and Spirit are all the same God, but different persons.

 

[centuri0n]

They don’t even imply is when considered (with no objections) as a whole.

theMutant:

If you are looking for one simple verse to PROVE infallibility, I admit that you won’t find one. However, if you look at the combined force of many related verses of the New Testament you will find that this belief is supported by Scripture.

Go for it.

To begin with, the next verse states that the gates of Hell (Hades) will never overcome the kingdom of heaven; to which Peter was given the keys.

Sure – Peter (and the other apostles, right?) had the power of binding and loosing – which does not say they will be infallible. It says they have authority. There’s a difference.

Christ bound us to accept the authority of the Church (if he refuses to listed to the Church, treat him as a Gentile and a tax collector). To tell a first century Jew to treast someone as such was to tell them to regard the person as outside of God’s covenant and even a traitor to it.

Sure. I agree. In no way do I say the church has no authority. The qiestion is (still) the fallibility/infallibility of that authority. No answer yet from Scripture.

The scripture declare that the Church is the pillar and foundatation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). How could this be so if it could err in teaching the faith?

Yet another person to say that 1 Tim 3:15 says that the Church establishes truth rather than that the church ought to uphold truth. Tell me, Mutant: did the truth pre-exist the Church, or did it come into existence after the Church did?

There are more verses but I must admit that they could be interpreted differently than I propose. Therefore, I suggest that if you want to understand what meaning the Apostles applied to these teachings, you study the writings of the early Church.

I love this argument. Go ahead …

These writing were made by those taught by the Apostles and their immediate successors. Their descriptions of the structure and the practice of the Church is very Catholic indeed. You will also find many affirmations of the authority of the bishops, particularly the bishop of Rome. I believe it was either Irenaeus or Ignatius who said that all churches, indeed the faithful of the whole world must agree with the church of Rome.

Go ahead and find that quote for me. We may have to start a new thread.

 

[centuri0n]

theMutant:

Two thoughts on your question.

1: This doesn’t belong in the Apologetics forum, but in the Politics forum.

Hardly. The issue is if, as many in this forum have advocated, having authority is only meaningful if that authority is infallible. I think my example proves out easily that these two things are not joined at the hip.

2: The infallibility of the Church and the Pope is based on the One who established them, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We are assured of this infallibility because Chist declared that the Spirit would be sent to lead us to all truth and that Satan would never overcome the Church. Paul declared that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Unless you can find the same authority establishing and attesting to the truth of the President of the United States, you have no assurance of his infallibility.

Well, you over-reach in attacking my example. I would never say that George Bush is infallible – but my point is that he has great authority but lacks infallibility, which is an example which breaks the back of the complaint that the church can only have authority if it is infallible authority.

But that said, your fast summary of the Scripture here is an interesting take. Since I am confident we can never see eye-to-eye on 1 Tim 3:15, let’s stick with Mt 16.

Where does it say “infallible” there?

 

[centuri0n]

Richard Lamb:

One difference Cent, the us was not founded by Jesus (Much as many here would like to think ) the church was…the church was promised the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth, The U.S was not…

Care to quote the context, Richard?

 

[Trento]

centuri0n:

They don’t even imply is when considered (with no objections) as a whole.

The qiestion is (still) the fallibility/infallibility of that authority. No answer yet from Scripture.
.

Our Lord promised to send the Holy Spirit to dwell with the Church forever (John 14:15-18). Likewise, He promised to be with His Apostles (who at the time were the entire Church) “all days even unto the consummation of the world” (Matt. 28:19-20). Stop and consider for a moment the light this sheds on Our Lord’s claim that the gates of hell would not prevail over the Church (Mt. 16:18). The claim that He would be with the Church always (Mt. 28:20). The claim that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church leading her into all truth (cf. John. 16:13). That he would not leave us as orphans (John. 14:18). Would not a charism of protection from error aid in the preservation of unity? The Word of God, clearly teaches: “That they may be one” (John 17:11); “One Lord, one faith” (Eph. 4:5); “Be like-minded one toward another” (Rom. 15:5); “Be of one accord, of one mind” (Phil. 2:2); “Be ye all of one mind” (I Peter 3:8); “Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things… Be not wise in your own conceits” (Rom. 12:16). Would it not make perfect sense of Paul’s statement that the Church of God was “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15)? The only question now is how this is put into practice.
Unity needs an infallible Authority otherwise you have no absolute guarantee that the Bible is reliable.Without infallibility there could be no finality regarding any one of the great truths which have been identified historically with the very essence of Christianity.
If the early Church was not infallible in her definitions regarding these truths, what compelling reason can be alleged today against the right to revive the Sabellian, or the Arian, or the Macedonian, or the Apollinarian, or the Nestorian, or the Eutychian controversies, and to defend some interpretation of these mysteries which the Church has condemned as heretical?

 

[ralphinal]

Let’s take the opposite arguement for a second. Ok, so the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth can teach error and be incorrect. Now then, if this is true I have several questions. First, when does God let us know it is wrong? Is it a matter of personal revelation? Will a new prophet appear (like Mohammid)? Second, when the Chruch is in an era of being wrong, are all of the people that follow it due to faith in Jesus’ prayer that we all be one and whoever hears his representatives hears him (Luke 10:16) doomed to hell? What about when the Church is right? Are those who think that it is wrong doomed or saved? Let’s look back at Luke 10:16. If we hear those sent by Christ, we hear him, if we reject them, we reject Christ. If they are going to speak for Christ, will he not protect them from teaching error? How does the idea of a fallibile Church line up with the Church being one body in Christ? Can the head be correct and the body wrong? Am I missing the entire point? God has the ability to raise his Son from death, create the entire universe with thought alone, and know everything from the beginning to the end and back again, yet he would not protect the Church from errors in teaching? There are a lot of verses that point to an infallibile Church and as much logic that says it must be as well. If Scripture and human reason point to the same answer, then can it be wrong?

 

[ralphinal]

I know this list is on here already, but take the verses as a whole.

John 16:13
John 14:26
Luke 10:16
1 Timothy 3:15
1 John 2:18-29
Acts 15:28
Matthew 28:20 — Jesus is with us always, so you tell him he is wrong

 

[johnMark]

ralphinal:

Let’s take the opposite arguement for a second. Ok, so the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth can teach error and be incorrect. Now then, if this is true I have several questions. First, when does God let us know it is wrong? Is it a matter of personal revelation? Will a new prophet appear (like Mohammid)? Second, when the Chruch is in an era of being wrong, are all of the people that follow it due to faith in Jesus’ prayer that we all be one and whoever hears his representatives hears him (Luke 10:16) doomed to hell? What about when the Church is right? Are those who think that it is wrong doomed or saved? Let’s look back at Luke 10:16. If we hear those sent by Christ, we hear him, if we reject them, we reject Christ. If they are going to speak for Christ, will he not protect them from teaching error? How does the idea of a fallibile Church line up with the Church being one body in Christ? Can the head be correct and the body wrong? Am I missing the entire point? God has the ability to raise his Son from death, create the entire universe with thought alone, and know everything from the beginning to the end and back again, yet he would not protect the Church from errors in teaching? There are a lot of verses that point to an infallibile Church and as much logic that says it must be as well. If Scripture and human reason point to the same answer, then can it be wrong?

Ralph, I simply ask in reply given your above questions: Can anyone really know anything?

Instead of showing how infalliblity and authority must either go hand in hand or are, in a sense, interchangable your questions assume as much. If your premise is true concerning authority/infallibility then why are so few things infallibly defined? And why is it so tough to find such agreement on what is or is not infallibly defined? This goes to show that authority does not need infallibility.

Mark

 

[Chris_W]

Johnmark wrote: “…it is by the authority of the RCC that scripture is deemed inspired so how is giving scripture really a proof?” - Good question, but an issue for perhaps another thread. I understand that Centurion is asking for Scriptural proof saying “The qiestion is (still) the fallibility/infallibility of that authority. No answer yet from Scripture”.

Centurion - You have not answered my question: Jesus did promise to protect His church from error (as stated in my last post). If you are arguing that the Church is not necessarily infallible, what alternative method are you suggesting for how Jesus is fulfilling His promise? Or are you suggesting He isn’t doing what He promised?

 

[Cephas]

centuri0n:

Mt 28:19
Mk 1:9-11
Gen 19

That’s where God says the Father, Son and Spirit are all the same God, but different persons.

Matthew 28:19 - Does not say this.

Mark 1:9-11 - Does not say this.

Genesis 19 - Far from saying it, it does not even remotely imply what you suggested.

Apparently, it looks like you are making inferences on these verses saying that they say something that isn’t there, but when one makes the same kind of inference to another scripture with regards to infallibility, you reject it.

The Trinity is NOT explicitly taught in Scripture, it’s implicitly taught.

One has to take all the Scripture references and together one can begin to see this Truth. No one scripture says that ‘God is a Trinity.’

Same goes for infallibility.

 

[theMutant]

centuri0n:

In no way do I say the church has no authority. The qiestion is (still) the fallibility/infallibility of that authority.

As I already stated, my argument is based on reason applied to the combined statements in Scripture; not on a specific reference. Let me ask you this, if Christ, who is TRUTH personifie, binds us to accept the authority of the Church and her judgements concerning matters of faith, and also binds us to accept those judgements under pain of excommunication, and also promised that the Holy Spirit would be sent to the Church to guide her to all truth, then in what way is it reasonable to assert that the Church’s judgements on matters of faith are not infallible?

centuri0n:

Yet another person to say that 1 Tim 3:15 says that the Church establishes truth rather than that the church ought to uphold truth.

I’m afraid that you are misinterpreting my argument. I do NOT claim that the Church establishes the truth. God alone establishes the truth. The Church, however, has been given the grace and the authority by God to discern the truth and to do so infallibly so that we have assurance regarding what we are to believe. What do we do if two people have a different view of what is a sin? If we follow the instructions of Jesus, we discuss it, we discuss it with others and, failing a resolution on that matter, we take the matter to the Church. According to Jesus, the Church’s decision on the matter is final and will be bound in Heaven as well as on Earth.

Please keep in mind that you DO accept that people have been given the gift of infallibility (unless you reject the inspiration of the Scriptures). God is the author of Scripture, however, He chose to deliver Scripture to us through human instruments. Human instruments are, by nature, fallible so He gave them the grace of inspriation so that we can be assured that, when recording Scripture, they did so INFALLIBLY.

The difference between the infallibility of the authors of Scripture and the teaching authority is the nature of the grace given. In the case of inspiration, God gives the words used to pass on the teaching. In the case of the Church, God merely prevents false teaching.

centuri0n:

Go ahead … Go ahead and find that quote for me. We may have to start a new thread.

I will do so.

Peace,

David W. Cooney

 

[JPrejean]

In the case of inspiration, God gives the words used to pass on the teaching.

That sounds awfully close to plenary verbal inspiration (God dictates the literal words of Scripture), which is not the Catholic view of inspiration. The concepts are inspired and protected, not the literal words.

 

[theMutant]

JPrejean:

That sounds awfully close to plenary verbal inspiration (God dictates the literal words of Scripture), which is not the Catholic view of inspiration. The concepts are inspired and protected, not the literal words.

I admit that I was not completely clear on this point. My intention is not that God chose the exact words written by the authors but that He gave them the ideas, the understanding, and the knowledge of what they were to write and the grace to do so infallibly. This is why we can rely on the truth of Genesis even though it was written so long after the fact. This is why there can be slight differences between the various quotes given in the Scriptures and both quotes will have the same level of inspiration and infallibility. The Church, however, is not inspired in what she teaches, she is merely preserved from teaching error.

 

[theMutant]

St. Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies between 180 and 199. “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Aposltes, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.” (Against Heresies, III, iii, 2)

Where did Irenaeus get such an idea at the end of the 2nd century, just over 100 years after the Crucifixion? He was taught by Polycarp who was taught by the Apostle John. There are many other references like this from the Early Church. I invite you to check further. It is very clear from the writings of the Early Church that they believed that all of the faithful must accept the teachings that emminate from the Church in Rome, headed by its bishop who became known as the pope. The Early Church also made many references to the keys given to Peter as the basis of the authority of the bishop of Rome over the whole Church. Even many protestants acknowledge this (I recommend the book, “Jesus, Peter, and the Keys”).

They got this teaching from the Apostles themselves and it has continued to be passed on to this day. I believe that this shows the Apostles themselves taught this and so I must again ask, taking the combined statements of Scripture and the understanding of the Early Church taught by the Apostles, in what way is it reasonable to assert that the teachings of the Church and the pope are not infallible?

 

[theMutant]

centuri0n:

I would never say that George Bush is infallible – but my point is that he has great authority but lacks infallibility, which is an example which breaks the back of the complaint that the church can only have authority if it is infallible authority.

Although it is true that God established both our Government and the Church, I don’t think you can substantiate any claim that they were established for the same purpose (and I don’t think you have attempted to make such a claim). The Church was established by God to be the pillar and foundation of truth and the authoritative guide to the world in matters of faith. This much you have agreed to. It is based on this PURPOSE that I maintain it is unreasonable to argue that the Church’s authority could be anything other than infallible; not simply because the Church is authoritative. If the Church’s authority is not infallible then we have no basis for being certain what writings constitute Scripture.

I am not arguing that the Church establishes the authority of Scripture (that comes from God) but that we have no means of assurance regarding what writings are and are not Scripture if the Church’s authoritative delcaration on the matter is not infallible. If it was not infallible, we are free to reject it because it may be false. Anyone could argue that the Gospel of Thomas is scripture. For that matter, we have no basis for rejecting the Book of Mormon or Sciene and Health with the Key to the Scriptures. Both the Mormons and Christians Scientitst use the Bible and their own interpretation of it and claim that their subsequent writings are also from God. If we cannot rely on the infallibility of the Church we cannot argue against that claim because, even the argument that general revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle is based on the authoritative teaching of the Church and not on Scripture.

David W. Cooney

 

[tickleme_kristi]

Cephas:

Sorry for going off topic for a sec, but…

…where does God say He is a Trinity?

.

Genesis 3:22 - ‘Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life . . .’

 

[tickleme_kristi]

centuri0n:

There is a lot of boldness in asserting that the church has no authority at all if it is not infallible. I’d like to test out that assertion.

Love him or hate him, does George Bush has authority as the President of the Unites States?

Is His authority infallible?

Think about it.

I’m assuming by “Church” you mean the Pope, It’s my understanding that the Pope is the only one who can claim infallibility and then only under certain conditions (1. the infallable teaching is addressed in public, 2. form the chair of Peter and 3. the Pope has to state that the teaching revealed is infallible), once these requirements are met the teaching is infallible (e.g. the emacualte conception [sp?]). I know a lot of people have said this, but it’s true, George ‘w’ receives his authority from men, the Pope/Church receives authority from God. God’s authority is the definition of Infallible.